New commenter thule222 shared a link the other day to a blog post on the “balanced”* “religion and spirituality” site Patheos by Elizabeth Duffy titled Complementarity, Not Competition. I’m alarmed at the emotionalism of Ms. Duffy’s post along with the lack of intellectual rigor it displays. It contains a number of vague statements, a quote from the Pope about how some men are bad and others are good, and a picture of a man who appears to be taking the risk of launching a new business venture. After reading the post several times, my best take on what she is trying to get across is Shame on you if you read (or write) blogs in the manosphere. She could of course have had another point in mind entirely. Instead of my take on her blog post, she may have actually meant I like pizza. Her lack of specific assertions backed up by facts and logical argument makes this impossible to know. This is tricky business, and I’ve learned recently that you can’t take a woman’s own written claims as indicating her own opinion. It could even be the case that I need to tell her what she meant before she can decide if she will or will not back up her own assertions.

It may also be that her point was that as a man I shouldn’t be alarmed by the very lack of logical thought she was cleverly displaying throughout her post (emphasis mine):

Some personalities in the manosphere write mainly to other single men, but there are married proponents as well, who suggest that becoming more of an Alpha male will improve their marriage.

I don’t disagree. Husbands should know how to lure their wives happily to bed. They should know how to lead a family with authority and respect. They should understand women’s hormonal cycles and respond accordingly, or refuse to respond with alarm, as is often the more appropriate course of action. And above all, they should be happy about being men.

While I’m pleased to have Ms. Duffy’s permission to be happy about being a man, I do have some concerns about her assertion that men shouldn’t be concerned about women’s lack of control of their own hormonal cycles. I don’t mean this from a game perspective; proper game form in response to a woman behaving irrationally is often a posture of amused mastery. But this frame of mind is specific to a context where the woman’s emotional whims can safely be disregarded. This was generally the case prior to feminism. Aside from being about a general sense of unhappiness, feminism at its core is a rejection of the patriarchal view that women at times behave like children, and a deep desire of women to be taken seriously. With this in mind, I can only assume that Ms. Duffy very much wants us to take her seriously when she tells men not to take women too seriously.

The promise from feminists as men have agreed to grant women greater and greater power has always been that women weren’t really slaves to their feelings and hormones. They argued fairly convincingly that women could and would act the way men are expected to act if we only took them seriously and allowed them into previously male only positions. Unfortunately as women have checked off each item in their be like men to do list, feminists have generally lost interest in holding up their end of the bargain. Instead of teaching women to be the real deal they have focused on creating separate lower standards only for women, and teaching women to fake it.

At the same time, the feminist line has morphed. Many feminists simply ignore the issue. Others deny that this is an issue, and even claim that it is men and not women who need to learn to keep their hormones in check. This has lead to the popular memes of testosterone poisoning and Lehman Sisters. Additionally, the same feminists who tell us that women can and should be in positions of authority and leadership also tell us that it places women under undue strain to expect them to make decisions requiring trade-offs. This contradiction very much should alarm all of us. I don’t see how it can possibly end well. Either women are capable of behaving like rational adults and we decide to hold them accountable as such, or they are something like children who require adult supervision. The current path of women demanding and receiving the option to have it both ways is an unmitigated disaster, and in my view will only get worse.

For her part Ms. Duffy appears to absolve herself of any responsibility for the great harms of feminism while both defending it and enjoying the benefits of it. At one point she uses standard feminist language to shame men who raise concerns about it (emphasis mine):

There is a corner of the internet known as the “manosphere.” In a backlash to perceived cultural bias against men due to the mainstreaming of feminist principles, some men, feeling oppressed and trampled into submission by strong women…

Elsewhere in the post she writes:

The married portion of the manosphere has gained traction among some Christian and Catholic men, who—perhaps raised in broken homes—are looking for male role models as they strive to build a marriage and a family that will last.

Not only does she ridicule and belittle those who voice concerns with the immense damage caused by feminism without seriously addressing the actual issues, in the subtitle of her post she washes her hands of any responsibility for the harms of feminism. In truly childish form, if there are any negative outcomes to the changes women have demanded she decides that it must be men who are to blame:

For feminism to have gained a foothold, men had to collude with it, and it has been in their interest to do so; this leaves the message of the manosphere ringing hollow.

*Patheos appears to strive to have something for all faiths and “spirituality”. If you aren’t satisfied with Ms. Duffy’s Catholic non feminist feminism, you might instead try this article on the search for love by lesbian and straight Muslim women in the U.S. If neither of these strike your fancy, you might try this article from the Evangelical Portal on the appropriate response to Christian sexism and lack of acceptance for homosexuality by the author of the book The End of Sexual Identity.

Related

413 Responses to Do not be alarmed.

Why does your remark “a number of vague statements, a quote from the Pope” make me want to say :

NOOOO one expects the Spanish Inquisition, our chief weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Not sure….

Anyway, the gall, she writes an article that is 3/4 about men, manosphere, etc., then tries to claim the piece was about something she worked into her wrap up, how men and women can be their best or some such nonsense.
This, in evangelical feminist circles, is sacred ground, the implication of balance….a word whose meaning has been so corrupted as to mean nothing, because balance is put up as an offset to full blown feminism, “I believe we need balance” is a statement that feminists feel is yielding ground!

That men share responsibility for unchecked feminism, especially in the church, is very true. More than secular men, who when supporting feminism make caricatures of themselves as male feminists but are easy to spot and not so great in number, Christian men hide behind the worlds wrong impression that the church is a place where men and women hold true to traditional roles. This affords evangelical feminists cover, something to hide behind, and a stable of useful idiot men who trumpet for the strumpets for the equivalent of a cyber pat on the back.
She didn’t mean to, but she outed the Christian white knights, men who I think see a dremmel looking back at them in the morning mirror.

If men colluded with feminism, it was unwittingly, buying into a deceptive trick that women wouldn’t power-grab when they had the chance… but grab they did. It was like trusting a slick-haired politician to totally keep their campaign promises.

They also assured us they weren’t nearly as evil as men are, but… they are, in fact, worse.

LIES!!!

haha

I think feminism got a boost it never could have survived without, in the form of abortion and birth control. It would be unsustainable without those.

I love the way this post illustrates that they are either competent adults, or 8 yr old brats, and cannot simultaneously be both. The best women I know realize that they become destructive psychos sometimes, so they defer to men, who are much less prone to that, and better designed to handle the pressures of leadership because of it. The main question is, are they mature and honest enough to acknowledge their own madness and irrational destructive behavior, or will they just keep trying to act like it isn’t there or it’s someone else’s fault (which is like trying to get us all to accept the Emperor’s new clothes when we can all see he is naked)

It is their childlike element that lets me know that I MUST retain a position of authority, in relating to them. I love that nutty childlike element in some ways, it can even be charming, if not mildly (or majorly) annoying… but a person like that is not going to be the boss of me.

Further, I will not be a slave to my own desires, to the point that I become a slave to the women I desire. I master my desires, I master my life, and therefore, I master women. The result?

Happy me. Happy women. General order in my home. Absence of madness and destruction.

Wimps and losers (I prefer these terms over white knights and manginas) have a great deal of responsibility. She is absolutely correct that there is an enormous number of men who are to blame (ALONGSIDE 100% of WOMEN) for feminism. They miss the part in capital letters usually though.

Just remember the Suffragettes would be in Guantanamo Bay for being domestic terrorists.

Don’t commit, don’t cohabitate, and stay independent. That is what men need to do today. Use them for sex when required, and that’s all.

On the second page of her article she says:
“I cannot offer an apology for feminism. I have not been able to align myself with the women’s movement because my sexual ethics, which are informed by my Catholic faith, are incompatible with the feminist stance on birth control, extra-marital sex, and abortion.”

So, she does freely admit that she is a feminist except for a few issues about which there is probably some disagreement within the feminist camp. On anything outside of abortion, birth control, and extra marital sex she is a self-admitted feminist.

“So, she does freely admit that she is a feminist except for a few issues about which there is probably some disagreement within the feminist camp. On anything outside of abortion, birth control, and extra marital sex she is a self-admitted feminist.”

In her defense, she can correctly identify herself as non-feminist because of these differences as feminism has those issues at the centre of its ideology. The other items (stacked courts, judicial sexism, cultural sexism, economic sexism) are mainstream ideas here in North America and she is correct as not identifying them as feminist. As they are beliefs ALL women share.

In the church there is a set of special beliefs that are added to the codified things, family court, etc. Her perspective coming from the church would have her yes, deny the sexual aspects of feminism, per se, but she is hiding behind that. Using a very Christian rationale, she is on board with man bad woman good, that sums up evangelical feminism. Not only are they not accountable, legally, they are not accountable spiritually. In fact, worse, they are the arbiters of morality FOR men. They see the wifes role as enforcer for the morally weak man. The whole of the church is behind that.

Indeed. The whold of society is behind that, all the way back to Frances Willard and the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement.

A commentor once asked on here why some of us were bothering to research the roots of feminism in Christiantiy. And it was for this very purpose. To point out that the Second Great Awakening was destructive not only to Christianity by turning it into a social gospel platform for raging against the “social problems” of the day, but that has lead to feminism.

Apparently the “men are responsible for feminism’s success” where “men” implicitly is defined as all men is popular among those who call themselves traditional conservatives. It is merely another manifestation of the Apex fallacy. Germaine Greer didn’t have to go around the US convincing thousands of men who owned bookstores to get her book published, all she had to do was convince one, or perhaps three, men in a certain part of NY City and it was done. Similarly, the feminists of the 1990’s did not have to convince millions of men of the worth of VAWA, they just had to get Sen. Joe “Hairplugs for men” Biden to carry the ball in the Senate (and BJ Clinton was a freebee). Dog-whistling the White Knight social / traditional conservatives to vote VAWA was trivial…”It’s For The Women” and that was that.

In the church there is a set of special beliefs that are added to the codified things, family court, etc. Her perspective coming from the church would have her yes, deny the sexual aspects of feminism, per se, but she is hiding behind that. Using a very Christian rationale, she is on board with man bad woman good, that sums up evangelical feminism. Not only are they not accountable, legally, they are not accountable spiritually. In fact, worse, they are the arbiters of morality FOR men. They see the wifes role as enforcer for the morally weak man. The whole of the church is behind that.

This is how I read her as well: i.e., I can’t identify as feminist because of the sexual morality issues, but otherwise I agree with the rest of feminism.

That pretty much characterizes the view of the overwhelming majority of Christian women today — only a few outliers here and there really disagree with feminism in ways beyond the sex/abortion issues. I think it’s also fair to say that it isn’t surprising that these women don’t consider themselves feminist in any way, because these beliefs and views are now simply mainstream and “normal”.

You have to realize how fundamentally subversive and counter-to-received-normal the ideas we have about these things really are.

“For fem­i­nism to have gained a foothold, men had to col­lude with it, and it has been in their inter­est to do so; this leaves the mes­sage of the manos­phere ring­ing hol­low.”

She seems to assume a few falsehoods:
1. That the men of the manosphere seemed to be in alignment with feminism in the past
2. Since some men are/were feminists that it invalidates the concerns of the manosphere today
3. That it has been in men’s interests to support feminism

Maybe it’s just me but her logic is like saying:
1. Some women colluded with opposition against the suffrage movement. This leaves the message of the suffrage movement ringing hollow”.
2. Some women support abortion. This leaves the message of the pro-life movement ringing hollow”.

I can go on and on with examples like this but it makes me wonder, don’t they teach logic in school anymore?

It is her (and feminists) buzz-word used to lump groups with nothing in common together so they can be discredited based on their most extreme membership. “Manosphere” lumps in game hucksters, Conspiracy Nuts, Diet Enthusiasts, “Human Biodiversity” writers, White Nationals and others with Fathers Rights advocates and judicial reformers so they can be discredited.

Fidelbogen (google Counter-Feminist) wrote about this earlier last week and he may be correct that terms like MRM, MRA, and Manosphere should be abandoned by Fathers Rights and Judicial Reformers as they are tainted and poisoned terminology.

“”You have to realize how fundamentally subversive and counter-to-received-normal the ideas we have about these things really are.””
—————————-
Yes, its always seen that way when you disturb conventional wisdom. This is the primary reason for blow back, especially from male Christians.

I don’t take any issue with her use of the term “manosphere”. I use the term myself. It has meaning. It is a loose collection of blogs and commenters with a wide range of opinions and perspectives, but with the commonality of discussing elsewhere undiscussable realities of sex and feminism.

Oh most definitely Dalrock and I do not point any of that criticism towards your writings. It is a developing idea (termed “non-feminist”) and Fidel even states that different “flavours” of non-feminism may be something to embrace, while still eliminating the baggage and central hub of a movement, that can be attacked and discredited. By keeping things decentralized and sectarian, but cohesive at its core, it is something bigger than what we have now, but beyond what can be attacked as “manosphere”.

How, exactly, can we be sure that there aren’t more than a few White Nationalists, gamers, conspiracy theorists, and various other YBM-disapproved troublemakers within the ranks of the “Fathers Rights” activists and “Judicial Reformers?”

Fortunately I am not part of the “manosphere” and I want no part in what you advocate.

It does however accept people who deny the existence of rape. Hell, even people who actively embrace rape as a concept. People who are FRA reformers are very wise to disassociate themselves from whatever you advocate, as it is poisonous to the discourse of judicial reform.

“How, exactly, can we be sure that there aren’t more than a few White Nationalists, gamers, conspiracy theorists, and various other YBM-disapproved troublemakers within the ranks of the “Fathers Rights” activists and “Judicial Reformers?”

So if we remove the emotionally laden language, does she have a point? That is, did men collude?

I think there is _evidence_ of collusion. In the links that Dalrock provides of his own previous posts on Earhart for example there is evident male collusion to provide for her success. Male editors made her famous. Male heads of organizations provided her funding. Men flew her to her destination and proclaimed her a goddess.

Again she should be attacked for clearly defending feminism. As others here have pointed out she lays out all of the key issues and then ignores Church teachings like head coverings and being saved through child birth. However, I think her main thesis, that we should take a look at ourselves and our own collusion, a worthy one.

Because, if we ask that question, we might look at ways to stop colluding. A wise general listens to what his enemies think of him and pays attention to what that might reveal of the battlefield.

Also, I think back to some of the men I know who actively pressured their wives to do things that were non-feminine in order to advance their own political philosophies. Just like they can’t have it both ways we can’t have it both ways either. The Apex Fallacy doesn’t explain everything. I mean “White Knight” as used in the context here (and I truly hate the phrase since I _like_ the image of a White Knight) essentially means a colluding man.

However, I think her main thesis, that we should take a look at ourselves and our own collusion, a worthy one.

This was not her thesis. The point you are referencing was not that men should consider how they have colluded. It was that since men must have colluded she is dismissing those who raise issues with feminism. But I agree with you that had she made a good point, she would have made a good point.

The notion that men are complicit so they are thereby discredited from having a plan for a way back is the zenith of circular reasoning. If that be true “complimentarianism” should be abandoned because of its association with feminism.

“So if we remove the emotionally laden language, does she have a point? That is, did men collude?”

I think that some men, knowingly and unknowingly, did collude with feminism. Unknowingly, WACF mentalities, waiting so long to stand up to legal injustices, and many other things fed women’s collective egos to where they may have seen feminism as a logical conclusion. Knowingly, well you have the Hugo Schweizers out there.

It still doesn’t invalidate men for speaking out against feminism’s injustices. Her whole collusion argument is invalid along those lines.

You have to also wonder if her article isn’t an attempt to instigate factionalism within the “manosphere”. Divide and conquer?

Well, at the risk of sounding pedantic, what she specifically said was that she can’t get behind “the manosphere.” If what ybm–and Fidelbogen, and many other writers like them that I’ve seen–have said is accurate, dismissing “the manosphere” isn’t quite the same thing as dismissing anti-feminism in general.

No, she doesn’t. She asks for introspection. Your formulating the most negative read possible. Admittedly, we live in a world where that is the safest read, but it is the most negative. The previous thread had some of your commentators defending rape. If she bumped into that it would not shock me if she ran for the hills. She is a woman after all, she’s not in it for the fight. There are plenty of commentators here that I would never ever have over for dinner.

GKChesterton, please provide quotes to support your claim she is asking for introspection. Because I’ve read that posting multiple times, and what I see is a ‘have my cake and eat it too” feminist dismissing the many legitimate protestations against feminism. She does not so much seem to be asking for introspection as for obedience – obedience by men, to the desires, requirements, orders, whims, etc. of women.

That’s a bit much, coming from you, Rmaxd, the first true rape apologist of the manosphere. Are you sure you’re not a feminist false flagger, here to discredit us by your very presence? Or are you just insane? Or are you a rapist seeking to justify your conduct?

I know plenty of people you would dismiss as “anti-game clueless backward rednecks”, and they are a LOT more honorable than you. None of them would ever rape a woman, for one thing. Most of them are loving husbands and fathers.

There’s a guy in the Manosphere who goes by “schopenbecq” (Schopenhauer + Michel Houellebecq).

Houellebecq … Houellebecq … didn’t that chick from No Doubt have a single about him or something?

As for Sra. Duffy — she lost me when she lumped all the blogs of the manosphere together, and characterized them as being more or less the Dave-from-Hawaii threads at Roissy’s.

This:

They write advice blogs on mastering the “Venusian arts” or the art of seducing women, by asserting their authority, physical strength, attractiveness, and intelligence, in order to acquire “Alpha” status in comparison to their male peers.
Some personalities in the manosphere write mainly to other single men, but there are married proponents as well, who suggest that becoming more of an Alpha male will improve their marriage.

is not only a terrible summary of the manosphere, it’s a pretty lousy summary of game. To write that you’ve got to be pretty careless, pretty dim, or pretty dishonest.

That entire website is a steaming pile of contradictions. There is NO rhyme or reason to ANYTHING. It’s like it’s written by a schizophrenic. Lesbian Muslims? Christian’s not being accepting of gays? Whaaaat?

I do think she has one valid point though. Men had to collude with feminism in order to make it work. This gets to the root of feminism, which is Marxism. Not that Duffy realizes that at all. But, Marxism needs to be defeated if we’re ever to truly defeat feminism, because feminism is embedded in Marxism, and Marxist thought is what gave rise to modern feminism.

The level of ad hominem here is amazing. You’re assaulting my pseudonym? I mean really? And _I’m_ the closeted feminist? I responded to Darlock’s own linked post in which he essentially lays out an argument _for_ collusion. I spelled out how the term “White Knight” has no meaning if collusion doesn’t occur below the Apex.

Listen, she’s obviously fighting from the established frontier which is “all this feminism except that over there” but that just makes her normal. So what you see in the article is that usual hodge podge. A clustering of good (introspection) with a lot of bad (men are out to get us!).

I don’t know Ms. Duffy but I believe, if I put names together she mentions in other articles that she is two removes from me (friend of a friend…or is that three, I forget these things). If you read her as a woman the story isn’t that bad. You are attempting to read her as a man, and I think that’s a problem. Dalrock’s rebuttal is true but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t, in a woman’s way, have a point:
* We did assist
* The manosphere can be a scary place for women as evidenced by the posts _here of all places_

First; GKChesterton, it is not necessarily ad hominem to point out the arrogance of assuming the name of Chesterton. If you genuinely don’t see the arrogance in that (and I can accept that you don’t see it as arrogance, if you are using Chesterton’s writings and philosophy to underpin your thoughts, and deliberately trying to emulate his style (D-) and probable thought process (I haven’t read enough of what you’ve written to grade it)), then please, refer to me as BenjaminDisraeli.
Second; the rise of feminism is the fault of men. Full stop. Perhaps not the Male Sex Corporeal, but at the beginning, when the vote began to slide from people who had demonstrated social responsibility and (theoretically, but no system is perfect, obviously) rational understanding of the issues, to people who had demonstrated the ability to turn food into feces, every single vote cast to extend the franchise was cast by a man who should have known better.
Third; am I the only one amused by the fact that she all but states that the only good reason for a Christian man to participate in the manosphere is that they came from a broken home?

On the use of the term Manosphere . . . don’t you dare let them shame that away from us.

The Manosphere is a multi-sided, multi-level search for and revalorization of the concept of masculinity in a postindustrial 21st century world. It primarily manifests through a series of interconnected blogs, but there are plenty of other elements. And by MRAs disassociating themselves from it, they lose their most ardent supporters.

If I wrote 4 pages about wildebeests, facts about them, their size their behavior, etc etc. then closed in the final sentences by saying my article was about the food chain in general and not about wildebeests that would mimic how her article is about introspection.

What does it even mean “reading it as a man”? Words mean things. Strung together they mean things. String after string, yep…still means things. Unless its some written form of modern art subject to emoting….it means what it means.

This charge that men are responsible is obfuscation. Yes, we are, and???????? The claims in the so called manosphere do not say otherwise, they simply unpack the real status quo. Its typical female narcissism to see blame, because even though blame is a bad thing, it gets the focus back on HER.

You dang right men let this happen, and all this equivocating about the article is a peek under the skirt of HOW men let it happen.

The manosphere can be a scary place for women as evidenced by the posts _here of all places

Boo hoo. Do you think the people who formed what has come to be known as the manosphere give a shit? Look, I’m a woman, and when I found this corner of the ‘net I was tickled pink because – gasp! – people have actual intelligent discussions and I could learn something and not be pandered to. What is scary about someone posting on the Internet? For heaven’s sake, it’s possible to just ignore some of the more virulent comments if they bother you that much or just read the posts.

Also FYI, pointing out that you are using the name of someone vastly more intelligent and insightful than you appear to be is not an ad hominem attack.

Duffy: “Husbands should know how to lure their wives happily to bed. They should know how to lead a family with authority and respect. They should understand women’s hormonal cycles and respond accordingly, or refuse to respond with alarm, as is often the more appropriate course of action. And above all, they should be happy about being men.”

Well, OK But I think it would be better to say it this way:

“Wives should know how to make their husbands happy in bed. Wives should know how to submit to their husbands and care for their families with grace and humility. They should understand their own hormonal cycles and not give in to them or use them as excuses for treating everyone around them poorly. And above all, they should be content with their lots in life and thank their lucky stars that their men thought them worthy enough to put rings on their fingers and work their own fingers to the bone to care for them and the children in their households.”

That entire website is a steaming pile of contradictions. There is NO rhyme or reason to ANYTHING. It’s like it’s written by a schizophrenic. Lesbian Muslims? Christian’s not being accepting of gays? Whaaaat?

I am not sure, but it appears that Patheos is a kind of “content aggregator” for religion / spirituality. There are a number of subsections – Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish – and subsections within those – Evangelical, Catholic, etc. so would suggest not reading too much into any one part of the site. Basically anyone can post almost anything there so long as they remain within whatever posting guidelines Patheos may require. I’m sure that it is very inexpensive, if not free, to have a blog on Patheos.

If you read her as a woman the story isn’t that bad. You are attempting to read her as a man, and I think that’s a problem.

So we are supposed to judge women by different standards? Is this because they are inferior, in your view, or because women “more empathetic” and “just know” so shouldn’t have to back up their arguments with facts or anything?

I am not sure, but it appears that Patheos is a kind of “content aggregator” for religion / spirituality. There are a number of subsections – Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish – and subsections within those – Evangelical, Catholic, etc. so would suggest not reading too much into any one part of the site. Basically anyone can post almost anything there so long as they remain within whatever posting guidelines Patheos may require. I’m sure that it is very inexpensive, if not free, to have a blog on Patheos.

From reading the about pages and faq they appear to be something very different than an open forum for anyone to come and share their own ideas. From the FAQ page:

Religion is often controversial. How will you maintain reliability and balance?
Every aspect of the site has been designed to rigorously promote balance and reliability. The core library of religious information has been written, assembled, and reviewed by highly-trained scholars of religion. Numerous scholars, clergy, and practitioners serve in advisory and editorial roles to maintain balance, breadth of perspective and a civil, constructive tone. Blogs, debates, and discussion forums are carefully moderated.

If you read her as a woman the story isn’t that bad. You are attempting to read her as a man, and I think that’s a problem. Dalrock’s rebuttal is true but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t, in a woman’s way, have a point:

CL has already raised a similar question to this, but I’m curious what you mean by this. Are you saying we need to have lower standards when judging the thinking of women vs men? One could replace the words man and woman in your sentence with adult and child and it would have much the same meaning:

If you read her as a child the story isn’t that bad. You are attempting to read her as an adult, and I think that’s a problem. Dalrock’s rebuttal is true but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t, in a child’s way, have a point:

Given your seeming agreement with my analysis, how do you square this with our feminist culture which states that such differences don’t exist? This is the profound contradiction within modern applied feminism. As I wrote in the OP, either women are adults and we hold them to the same standards as men, or they aren’t. I don’t get the sense from her that she would accept being judged by a lower standard, at least not out in the open. She more likely expects to be judged by a lower standard while everyone including her pretends it isn’t the case.

Again, I’m amazed at the fact that you would spend so much time pointing out my use of the name of a man I admire. Since he’s dead, I could hardly be impersonating him. One might just as easily complain about someone naming their son “John”. Its silly and would undermine the whole concept of “Christian Names”. I’m beginning to wonder if I’m surrounded by Cretans.

@Anonymous,

“Who is we?”

Can we talk about abstract classes or do I have to trot out names? You are free to use and ascribe traits to women and men why shouldn’t I be just as free? As I’ve pointed out there were men that Dalrock rightly points out who enabled Earhart. That tendency to “White Knight” is a very old one and has led to problems. So, it may not have been _you_ in particular, but as a class we did some of this. Heck, I’ll even go so far as to say that _I_ did some of it. I was blissfully unaware of my stupidity at the time, but I did it. Mrs. Duffy may be another on my list of “doh!” moments I just haven’t seen how yet.

@CLSo we are supposed to judge women by different standards? Is this because they are inferior, in your view, or because women “more empathetic” and “just know” so shouldn’t have to back up their arguments with facts or anything?

Yes, we are to judge them by different standards because to judge them as men is to deny that they are different. It would be ludicrous to hold them to male standards. For example, when I say, “she was a physically strong woman” I do not mean, “she was as strong as a strong man”. That doesn’t mean baby sitting them all the time, but it does mean treating them as they are. If I meet a German in the street I don’t expect him to talk in a Chinese accent. Likewise I expect women to talk as women and to have the fears and concerns native to women as a class. She obviously has those concerns. I’m not shocked by her having them. I wouldn’t expect a man to be so easily put off by postings here but it would not phase me at all to think a woman would be.

That being said I don’t expect their arguments to be totally vacuous. I just expect them to be loaded with often over-the-top emotional language and a peppering of bogeymen. I expect to have to filter down a bit to see if there is anything useful in there that I can take home to think about. To that end I saw the following:
1.) Posts in the manosphere can be hostile and threatening to women.
2.) Christianity (and I’m sorry folks this is repeated often if incredibly poorly) demands introspection and men should try to see why feminism might be a response to their own behavior.

Now as far as (2) I’ve been able to follow up with her posts elsewhere. She seems to be a good hearted young thing but an amazing light-weight when it comes to the history of feminism. That’s also not suprising. She’s bought into the hype she’s been taught since she was born. For this she deserves a bit of pitty, but not venom.

One of the reasons I can’t read any of the courting/relationship stuff from the Christian world is because the women have an immediate trump or “out” card and that is their forfeiting of taking responsibility for their actions and blaming it on Jesus or God.

For example, “I can’t side with the feminist side of things because of their stances on sex violate my christian principles.” Or “Don Draper isn’t a role model. Only Jesus is.”

Then what the hell are you even writing about the sexes for if everything is all laid out in that pretty little, mindless instruction manual called the bible?

“Well, I’ll use the bible for this point, but not that one. That one I’ll use feminism for, even though the two are separate moral theologies. But that’s OK, because it allows me to have my cake and eat it too.”

Now as far as (2) I’ve been able to follow up with her posts elsewhere. She seems to be a good hearted young thing but an amazing light-weight when it comes to the history of feminism. That’s also not suprising. She’s bought into the hype she’s been taught since she was born. For this she deserves a bit of pitty, but not venom.

The tone of her article is that of a teacher instructing correcting a child. She isn’t presenting herself as a naive lightweight. Neither is Patheos.

I’m amazed at the fact that you would spend so much time pointing out my use of the name of a man I admire. Since he’s dead, I could hardly be impersonating him.

LOL Way to miss the point completely. ::face palm:: Thanks for confirming via spurious reasoning (not expecting Germans to have Chinese accents?) that you do indeed think women are inferior and should be treated thus. The problem is, if a woman writes an article expecting to be taken seriously, this is the result – she will be taken to task for what she says. Maybe intellectual vigour isn’t most women’s style; if that’s the case, would you agree that they should STFU and go make sammiches?

@GKC
Women are people first. Women have the right to vote. Therefore women are accountable to being rational enough to exercise that right with responsibility. The BS about women being afraid of comments on the internet is silly. There is no threat. Women have developed such a thin skin that they whine about men being mean but women have no problem shaming men and using critical putdowns against men.

It is pandering to apply a lesser standard to women while according them the same rights as men. Men should stop pussy footing around by waffling in their treatment of women.

“Yes, we are to judge [women] by different standards [from men] because to judge [women] as men is to deny that they are different. It would be ludicrous to hold them to male standards.”

Duffy purports to use logic, reason and Biblical references and exegesis to make a point, and persuade readers of the correctness of her positions. She’s not writing about fears or concerns. She’s writing about a position,arguing for the correctness and rightness of her position, and attempting to use logic, reason, argumentation technique, and Biblical exegesis and analogy to support her claims.

And she’s not writing as a woman. She’s writing as an author. Her gender is irrelevant.

There is only one form of logic and reason. There is not one for men, and a different one for women.

There is only one form of argumentation, not one for men and one for women.

There is only one form of Biblical exegesis. I’m not aware of one form of exegesis for men, and a different one for women.

This is what feminism fought for: women being taken seriously as writers, workers, and thinkers. Women pound us over the heads every day with the principle that they are just as capable at writing, working and thinking/reasoning as men are. In at least some instances, I don’t doubt that to be true. Why, then, should we apply a different standard to Duffy’s logic, reason and exegesis because she is a woman?

“For feminism to have gained a foothold, men had to collude with it, and it has been in their interest to do so; this leaves the message of the manosphere ringing hollow.”

She is right, to gain a foot hold did require the support and collusion of men, i’m not sure how, as we have watched the whole thing shake out, that it has been in men’s interest on the whole, or even if people are honest, in women’s interest either.

I’ve always wondered why feminists hate women so much, and if they claim they don’t, well based on the results, it is a very weird sort of “non-hate for women” they are indulging in.

A totally unrelated thought, is it just the impression given by the other articles you linked that the site has the typically unhealthy obsession with sexual anarchy that pervades so much of theologically liberal Christianity?

I’ve been reading Mike Adam’s book, “Feminists say the darnedest things” and this article has only reinforced the observation, but is it just me or does organized feminism seem able to be summed up with the phrase …

“I demand you treat me and other women just like the other adults (men) and if you don’t i’m going to have a sulk and a cry till you do … oh and I’m getting men with guns to enforce my opinion if the sulking and temper tantrum doesn’t work”

“Well, I’ll use the bible for this point, but not that one. That one I’ll use feminism for, even though the two are separate moral theologies. But that’s OK, because it allows me to have my cake and eat it too.”

You’ve just described the mindset of about 80% of “Christian” women in the West.

And of course there’s no shortage of Mark Driscolls in the church who are more than willing to let them have it both ways.

That article is weak sauce. Blanket mis-characterizations of the manosphere without naming names or quoting actual, you know, manosphere writers. The manosphere is what she says it is, so listen up!

Beyond all that, I was really baffled by the entire last quarter or so of her article. Manosphere is this, manosphere is that, feminism=bad, but then… everything will be fine if we just pray and stuff? particularly this-

“The Christian blames himself for his failings, and seeks forgiveness from God, which in turn, instigates peace with others”

So… instead of all of us writers/commenters should ask for forgiveness and put down our [keyboards], and everything will be ok? The “anger” of the manosphere will dissipate, social problems solved. Divorce will vanish, misandrist laws will disappear? Sure, Wilbur.

What this article amounts to is- QUIT COMPLAINING. Blame yourself. Instead of searching for answers and solutions, be more Christlike and everything will be fine.

TFH you said it first The arguement GKC made is the very reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Dalrock this article and comments has topped everything else you have discovered and written. Seeing these christian women giving out their values of pure childish solipsism is like having a front row seat in the garden of eden watching the snake tell eve of the fruit and then eve going to adam. It is truely horrifying to see the church so gone and lost in the worship of man (woman)
The red pill allows a man to see so much. BTW I like the term Manosphere.

FFY, I think, has been the first one here to find the topic of her post, even though he wrote it in a mocking, sarcastic tone: Anger.

She wrote: “The anger toward the opposite sex that embitters both parties can only create a swiftly moving pendulum of rancor that never allows men and women to do what they were meant to do from the beginning of time, which is to complement one another.”

I think she has a strong point here. I see so much bitterness on some of these blogs; and just by reading them, I can feel some of that bitterness sprouting in me. I don’t think this is healthy.

If men in general are responsible (at least in an enabling sense) for the success of feminism (as many have claimed in the comments right here), then blaming ourselves would seem to be the correct response. But to respond with anger and bitterness is to blame the other, instead of being ready to forgive.

Can we make valid points in the manosphere without the anger? Without the bitterness? Can we speak the truth in love? How will we achieve any reconciliation unless we do?

“Husbands should know how to lure their wives happily to bed. They should know how to lead a family with authority and respect. They should understand women’s hormonal cycles and respond accordingly, or refuse to respond with alarm, as is often the more appropriate course of action. And above all, they should be happy about being men.”

I thought this was quite good. I give her credit for speaking in support of men’s headship (a teaching that I suspect married women will have to reaffirm since most male Christian leaders are nervous in this area). I think she intuits some of the other psychological issues quite well (“refuse to respond with alarm” is just good married man Game), except I think she misses one big point. She assumes that the majority of men have benefited from the sexual revolution. But they didn’t. What they often seem to get, Christian men included, is the leavings of alpha males. If men are not insulted by this, they should be. Especially Christian men.

Even he-man Mark Driscoll married a reformed tart.

Somebody mentioned being saved by childbirth and veiling. But I think her best next step is to start shaming her Christian sisters about their pre-marital behaviour.

BTW, the modern Catholic Catechism says men and women should accept their gender or sex. This is another way of saying what Mrs Duffy is saying. Men should be happy being men, and women satisfied with being women.

@Chris
There were some men responsible for the success of feminism, but i’m not one of them nor is anyone here.
How hard is it to understand that men aren’t an collective ?

There’s always been members of a group that were bitter & angry, the problem comes when they’re held up as examples of the entire group.
No group’s numbers consist entirely of people with halos above their heads.

“Can we make valid points in the manosphere without the anger? Without the bitterness? Can we speak the truth in love? How will we achieve any reconciliation unless we do?”

That is also supposing that Feminists are seeking reconciliation, which they’re not. The very reason for the anger that radiates from many a manosphere blog is due to the fact that many men were listening. However, as time went on, usually the most angry of bloggers and ‘men’s rights agitators’ simply found that their well founded grievances were spun, justified, or plain out ignored.

Sad to say, while your approach does have some merit, and Dalrock’s even tones have made him one of the top dogs in the “Men’s Right’s Sphere”. You can only reconcile with those who are seeking a peaceful compromise, feminists are not. Stating your points calmly to feminists is more akin to trying to talk reason with a gangbanger whose dead set on hurting you.

ChrisShe wrote: “The anger toward the opposite sex that embitters both parties can only create a swiftly moving pendulum of rancor that never allows men and women to do what they were meant to do from the beginning of time, which is to complement one another.”

“Complement” in this context seems to mean choices for women and duties for men. That what’s hers is hers, and what’s his is hers, and what’s theirs is hers. “Complement” seems to mean support her no matter what she wants – if she wants to scream and throw things and cause physical harm, why, that’s just a little thing that has to be put up with. If she wants to work for money, and put their children into day care, he should support her and write those checks. If she’s not haaaapy and decides to commit divorce theft (or “annullment theft”), he should just grin and bear it with stoicism.

“Complement” seems to boil down to the status quo. Hardly much of a deal, seems to me.

I think she has a strong point here. I see so much bitterness on some of these blogs; and just by reading them, I can feel some of that bitterness sprouting in me. I don’t think this is healthy.

I think you confuse righteous anger with bitterness. There is a serious difference.

If men in general are responsible (at least in an enabling sense) for the success of feminism (as many have claimed in the comments right here), then blaming ourselves would seem to be the correct response.

Men are not a collective. Collective guilt has been one of the tools feminism has used to extract what they want from society for decades. If you are willing to blame all men for feminism and give all women a pass, then you are saying that men should be slaves to women.

But to respond with anger and bitterness is to blame the other, instead of being ready to forgive.

There is no point in forgiving anyone who can not, will not, admit to any wrongdoing, now is there?

Can we make valid points in the manosphere without the anger? Without the bitterness? Can we speak the truth in love? How will we achieve any reconciliation unless we do?

Why should I want to reconcile with people who hate me, revile me, regard me as some sort of evil creature lower than most animals — i.e. why should i wish to reconcile with feminists? What’s the point of that? “Reconcile” in this case will basically mean submission to the whims of the day. Why would I want to do that?

If men in general are responsible (at least in an enabling sense) for the success of feminism (as many have claimed in the comments right here), then blaming ourselves would seem to be the correct response. But to respond with anger and bitterness is to blame the other, instead of being ready to forgive.

Can we make valid points in the manosphere without the anger? Without the bitterness? Can we speak the truth in love? How will we achieve any reconciliation unless we do?

It has been tried (in the Church) and has failed in full, flying colors. Why? Because women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism. That is — feminism, sans the sexual stuff about abortion and casual sex. That is — feminism without “sex pozzie” feminism. That is the ground upon which Christian women want reconciliation, and it is no ground for reconciliation at all, but rather a ground for consolidation of the “gains”, in terms of relative power, for women vis-a-vis men, as a result of “accepted” mainstream feminism.

Driscoll is a preacher of feminism through the back door. He is the Pope of Man Up 2.0, to be honest, even if he is a Calvinist Pope dead set on AMOGing all of his male attendees (heck, he’s just recycling behaviors from the time before he was “saved” (in his theological lexicon). He’s an example, and not the only one, of why the kind of irenic approach proposed by you, Chris, will simply not work.

Women don’t want reconciliation other than on feminism’s own terms (apart from a few outliers who are interested/willing to live as cultural separatists). As a CLASS, there is no interest in Christian women in any kind of “sex reconciliation” on any other basis than the “advances” feminism has made for the female position, while discarding the sex-pozzie stuff.

It’s important to understand that women who claim to be against abortion and female promiscuity often do not really want there to be any real legal or social penalties for that sort of behavior.

They can say “I’m not feminist” simply by imagining themselves to be against abortion and promiscuity – but they know that abortion will not be punished, and they fully intend to employ maximum shaming techniques on any man who wants to avoid women with high mileage.

Their opposition to abortion and promiscuity then is based on, what else, the fact that see the negative consquences FOR WOMEN. But what would they really think of actual deterrence of that behavior for women? Something that would actually benefit men? They have no interest for that. For that reason it’s safe to call them feminists. Indeed, they even call it “authentic feminism.”

I recall having a debate with a woman who denied that men were victims of feminism, because she claimed men are the leaders, and therefore are responsible. When it was explained to her that it was illogical to blame the vast majority of men for feminism, who had nothing to do with progressive changes in the laws and society, she simply ignored the point and continued to insist men cannot be the victims of feminism because men are “supposed to lead.” There is simply a flat refusal to employ logic, and the eventual response, with all these women, is to launch into ad hominems. This woman is a self-styled traditional Catholic. What I’ve come to conclude, is that feminism – at its core, is the refusal of women to accept moral obligations, and the refusal of men to punish women for moral failings.

Reconciliation requires two willing participants. Thus far, only one side is interested.

Many, many men wish feminism would go away. That the need for the manosphere would go away, and all the misandry would disappear, that men would grow up in a system that rewarded them for their efforts instead of punishing them for having a dick.

But it won’t go away, and its leaders are uninterested in compromise. So, you have the cold, focused anger of the manosphere instead, and its members understand that in today’s climate, throwing down ones arms and asking for forgiveness for what earlier generations did (what the heck?) and blaming myself for what they did because I also have a Y chromosome will not do a damn thing. Rather, it morphs into Chamberlain-esque appeasement. Feminists have no stopping point. They make demands, and when they are appeased, they make more demands. How can you have reconciliation with a never-satiated beast?

“Because women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism.”

Not to mention the fact that women are generally moral nihilists i.e. the very concept of morality is alien to them. If it feels right, they’re for it. If it doesn’t, they’re against it. If it strips power from men, they support it. If it gives power to men, they oppose it. Whether something is moral or not never occurs to them. They will not comprehend any argument that is based on a moral code of fairness, justice or anything similar.

@IAL

“Is that kind of like “them” wanting us to remain emotionally available but to kindly keep it zipped (and shut up)?”

It isn’t only that. Women want beta males to remain financially and emotionally available and also kindly shut up. A woman believes even the beta male whom she would never touch with a 10-foot pole should be her emotional tampon when she wants it and should have a part of his income confiscated and shifted to women in the form of AA, welfare and whatnot.

“They would like for women to remain sexually available but to kindly shut up” is simply incomprehensible BS. The only group of men who can reasonably be said to be asking women “to shut up” are a handful of dedicated MRAs, and they don’t give a damn whether women are sexually available or not. The men who want women to remain sexually available to them are the sexually successful ones (‘remain’ is the key word, after all) and they don’t care whether women are talking or not in the first place.

I will tell you why it ties up a board for weeks. Its a simple and obvious weakness men have, that being the urge to peacock. In this case to peacock with intellect, sharp lines, rapier wit, OTT sarcasm better than the last, and to some extent we like the humor of incredulity. Im not attacking or piling on, just observing. Because every now and again the triggers get pulled too fast (in this case here the triggers are not being pulled too fast) and the mire of the board is more from the peacocking than it is responses to the feminist man or woman.

In some ways that is why we come to these places, if we are honest. I mean posting on a friendly board is NOT activism. Granted, outing writers like the one who is subject of this post is a bit of activism and peppering their places with reason is also activism. But just round and round here is refining something that is in, as you call it, “the heavies” 99.9999% pure, better than Dove.

I am constantly surprised at the amount of effort put in by OrdinaryWomen(TM) to discourage slut shaming and other behaviours. It can’t be because this is of advantage to them because it manifestly isn’t. The only women advantaged by the removal of slut shaming are the sluts themselves. Leaving aside the reality that if you remove this method of marking a woman out as different and more valuable (i.e not a slut) then this devalues all of them, but more than that ultimately it wont work.

This is one behaviour of the political left that is so strange to me, as they attempt to remove the ability to “distinguish between applicants”, in all sorts of areas and the attempt to remove slut shaming is just more of that. Yet in all cases the effect has been to inevitably produce other methods of making distinctions that try to, and inevitably less accurately, replicate the results of the forbidden method. The examples are common place like banning apptitude tests thus leading to a university degree requirement (hurts the poor), banning of criminal record checks thus leading to groups with higher likelyhood of a hidden criminal record being negativly weighted (blacks typically) and of course the slut shaming case although i’m not sure what the other filter that is used for that one is although the harm to sexually restrained women is obvious enough.

It is strange the way feminists claim to be all of helping women out and fighting for women but they constantly advance ideas that are actually measurably and directly harmful to women. They may not do anything in the case of things that only harm men, that is to be expected, but they activly harm those they claim to want to support.

Of course that is true of the entire political left and the feminists are just particularly bad examples of it. Oh well at least they dont really breed much. That is something good I guess.

Heh,
I’ve already had the pleasure of bashing horns at Patheos in the past. There was this similarily stupid article by Julia Fernandez (Shrews I and II) which – while starting well and adressing a few issues – ultimately just grated and was the usual female centric BS (Fernandez is 39, waaaay past her While E Coyote moment and has now suddenly understood the plight of the poor men but goes on to to talk about herself and complain whiningly that she can’t find a man because of all those evil *other* women).

Anyways, this her article is a new low for the catholic christian community. I’d declare it’s safe to say…”churchianity” has infected both catholicism and protestantism.

The only significant masculine christian religion left is orthodox christianity.

Am I the only one who feels that the current situation is paralleling the sin in the garden of Eden?

I was taught that the worst mistake in the incident was that Adam displayed ingratitude for the woman as in “the woman YOU gave me …”. Its only now, under the lash of feminism that I am beginning to understand why he was so angry. I very much want to blame feminists and women in general.

But look, perhaps we also have some responsibility (as a whole) for feminism? Can women really do all that much if we hadnt gone along with this?. See how easily they are led, how they have so little control over their own natures in general, how they can be played, etc. For all their nonsense they make horrible soldiers and fighters. They are pliable, not staunch. If we had been more upright, and more honest, less arrogant, less given to deceit and fear of loss of material gains, perhaps we could have killed this beast long ago?

Women should never have been given the vote. That should be clear by now. We cant put that genie back in the bottle so quick, but we should be honest about it. Voting is rulership, and women must not be given such power to rule. We should never have allowed divorced women to take the children; as a whole they are not fit to head a household. We should be honest about this too.

Maybe we cant undo our original sin, but we can at least repent from it.

But look, perhaps we also have some responsibility (as a whole) for feminism?

Nice try. Maybe previous generations of men had some responsibility. I am an early Generation X and, when I became adult, all the harm was done. All the decisions were made and enforced. Nobody asked me nothing: they only fed me with a bill of lies and told me what to do. I was supposed to comply.

It took me twenty years of my life to discover the truth. When all society lies to you, it’s difficult to see the light. My youth was wasted trying to follow the script others told me it was a recipe for success but it was a recipe for disaster. Loneliness, heartbreak, depression, celibacy, you name it. I will not be able to recover these years and have a normal youth.

Maybe we cant undo our original sin, but we can at least repent from it.

I am (sort of) Christian and I will repent from my sins, which don’t include being in favor of feminism. I won’t repent from the sins of other people, the people who fooled me and were responsible for screwing my life.

As others have pointed out there were some men, namely the elites, who rendered a helping hand to feminism as it vastly benefitted them (think corporations and government). There were certainly also the limpdicked mangina brigades enabling feminism (by failing to lead).

However, one should bear in mind that there were factors aiding feminism that were out of anybody’s control. Remember that feminism 2.0, the rabid, poisonous form, came to life due to the 1968 cultural revolution. So are boomer men to blame?

Again, by and large I’d say no.

The reason feminism could make a bid for power at all….was because there existed a masculine vacuum. How did this come to be? In a nutshell: it pulverized itself in two worldwars. Imo, feminism 1.0 and 2.0 are one of the consequences of WW1 and WW2.

Women blamed men for those conflicts and in consequence masculinity was passé after 1945. With it went such notions as honour, integrity, willingness to fight etc. Now, the generation of WWII had been socialized *prior* to WWII (and its horrors). Thus the short return to traditionalism in 1950s. But by 1965 things were stirring, powers were arising and the old order…seemingly frail and bankrupt from horros past…was unable to prevail.

All that was required was one more war, the Vietnam War, and what was left of Patriarchy was obliterated.

Women, liberals, elites and (gullible) leftist manginas plunged a poisoned knife in the back of collective man – fighting an unwinnable war in the quagmires of the ‘Nam.

And in truth we’ve never recovered. In a sense you can see all this agony in Rambo I.

anon #2But look, perhaps we also have some responsibility (as a whole) for feminism?

Again, who is “we”? Does this “we” include the young 20-something men who were raised in single-mother homew by 2nd wave feminists? How do you assign any blame for feminism to a man who was born in 1990? When VAWA was passed into law, he was all of 5 years old. Are you suggesting that 5 year old boys somehow could have stopped all the White Knight manginas like Joe Biden from enacting that blatantly misandric piece of legislation? But wait, mommy told them that men were bad, that men like to hurt women, and mommy is never wrong because she made daddy go away 15 years ago. That’s the reality for too many young men, and there are worse things I could tell you that I’ve heard from young men beyond that. But this is about the “we”.

Does this “we” include all the men who were working in factories, driving trucks, cleaning drains, farming, in dairies, and zillions of other blue collar jobs in the 1980’s? They trusted their elected officials not to screw them over, and when the Bradley Amendment was rolling through the Congress if any of them objected, surely they were told “it’s to protect teh wimmenz” and that was good enough. Why? Because a whole bunch of the baby boom was raised in the traditional way, to re-spect and pro-tect teh wimmenz – and for that dutiful service, a whole bunch of those men have been screwed over. Some of them are in jail, in debtor’s prison, for failing to come up with the income some upper middle class judge “imputed” to them – because that’s what the Bradley Amendment was really about.

“…there is an awful lot of collateral damage and civilian death in war. That is just the way it goes, and you can’t stop it once the whole thing is in full swing. The time for Germany to tell the Soviets, “Whoops, my bad,” was in June, 1941, not – NOT – in April, 1945.”

You can broker a reasonable peace treaty after war has begun, but not after one side has raped and pillaged, burned and looted unchecked for years. After that has happened, trying to negotiate an easy peace is just an attempt to consolidate gains, as Brendan said.

The situation between men and women isn’t completely comparable to the German/Soviet conflict in that men are more or less biologically programmed to like women and I’d argue that different tribes/nations are more or less biologically programmed to dislike each other. Young people enter the gender war continuously not even realizing it’s occurring until they are themselves casualties. Still, it’s ridiculous for the triumphing party (as Hanna Rosin claims) to tell the wounded, “You need to get over your anger at what we did to you; it’s unproductive. Can’t we all just get along?” It doesn’t work that way. It’s never worked that way.

There is also a real generational war brewing, and the same holds true for that. Younger people are getting angry as they become aware of how slanted the playing field the older generations set up and still maintain is against them. And the older people are getting real defensive and morally indignant about this. Google any news article on the Boomers, and you’ll see this play out in the comments.

@Dalrock
” For feminism to have gained a foothold, men had to collude with it, and it has been in their interest to do so; this leaves the message of the manosphere ringing hollow.”

Unfortunately this statement is true.!!!
Men have surrendered to feminists and “enabled” ( I really hate that word) women in all areas of the feminist assault.
In my field, LE, men have allowed “Bambi-the meat-gobbler” to slide through the academy, field training and then go on to coddled careers with cushy non-hazardous assignments, usually at higher pay, all for a wink, a smile, and perhaps a cleaned pipe or two. It is disgusting ..BUT… I don’t blame the women, I blame the men who encourage this.

I was assigned to the training unit for over a decade and I can’t tell you how many offers I had to let Bambi “do anything” to pass. I had a reputation as a straight-laced guy,my wife is very attractive and I don’t cheat; but this didn’t stop the new, younger, hotter crop of gals from trying. For most dopey guys, the Bambi offers are just too tempting to turn down…and here lies the problem. If these men would tell Bambi to get off her knees and measure up, many women would come to the realization that they are not cut out physically and/or mentally for whole segments of employment. It is guys, desperate for tang”, that are skewing this shaking out process.

It’s worth pointing out that the majority of men in the US don’t go to college. So even though to college graduates who work in white collar, middle class or upper middle class jobs it may seem as though everyone is “just like them”, that is just not the case.

I suspect that there are more men out on the highway driving a semi-trailer big rig on any given day than in cube farms. The truckers I know don’t have a lot of free time to read blogs, or petition politicians about proposed legislation. They are too busy keeping a schedule, in order to keep money in the bank – and thus a roof over the heads of their family, the lights on, etc, Claiming that men who drive tens of thousands of miles per year are somehow partly responsible for feminism just doesn’t pass the laugh test. Ditto for the men on oil rigs, in coal mines, on tractors, driving trains, and on and on and on.

I am sure that the same was true in the 70’s and 80’s. Most men were too busy working for a living to worry about what the likes of Susan Brownmiller or Andrea Dworkin or other feminists were writing and screeching. That doesn’t mean they agreed and is sure as heck doesn’t mean they supported those harpies. No, those men trusted other men – men with Harvard educations, men with multiple degrees, men of the upper class and upper middle class, men who insisted they could be trusted to “do right”.

If “we” means a rather small handful of societal leaders who got certified by elite institutions to run law practices, become judges, become Congressmen, run corporations, run foundations, etc. then I’ll accept that. Problem is, those people do not read or post on blogs like this one.

A word about blame – this is a normal, default reaction, but generally it goes nowhere and helps nothing. The fact is that the twentieth century was very complex, things were changing radically in very short periods of time: war, technology, science, religion, population, families, etc., etc. A shift in any of those might have resulted in a very different result for society. No generation is born intrinsically better or more moral than any other; they are merely shaped into different forms by the preceding generations and their time. It’s easier for me to speak about the generational war than about the gender war because in the former I do not feel guilty or complicit. I am not angry at my parents about the laws that were passed in the eighties and how they did or didn’t impact those laws. I am a little irritated that they keep telling me that Social Security “will still be there – in some form” when we can all see how it’s going to play out and how Gen X and Y are going to get the shaft. There is a problem, but the Boomers and older people refuse to confront it or even see it because they have their own self-interest to protect. The same holds true between men and women. Clearly, there are huge problems, many of them caused by feminism, but women refuse to see them and in fact say that these problems can only be solved with more feminism. If conflict is not what people want, then they have to talk about what sacrifices they are going to make and what they are willing to concede. This is true for both Boomers and feminists – who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Buck, behind every Bambi there’s a legal system ready to drop a Federal civil rights lawsuit onto any city that doesn’t have “enough” cops of protected classes. If women had to meet the same standards as men in law enforcement, there would be very few female cops. That, under the doctrine of “disparate impact” would be “proof” of discrimination, and we all know where that leads.

At the individual level, you are right, and I salute you, and all the many other instructors, training officers, etc. who do what they can to keep standards up in peace officers. I know there’s only so much you can do, thanks very much for doing it. But higher up things look different.

The average police chief has to deal with all sorts of Federal mandates, including those “goals” and “timetables” (read: “quotas”) for women cops. A cynical man would suggest that to the feminists and their White Knight mangina supporters, the life of a street cop or a citizen is nothing compared to the unhaaaapiness of a woman. Better that some number of people die due to unqualified cops on the street – including other cops – than a politician have to endure the anger of an unhaaaapy feminist activist.

What is nonsensical about reconciliation? If reconciliation is not what we’re after, then what’s the point?

Reconciliation is not the same as surrender. But it does involve truth, and love, and repentance, and forgiveness. Sometimes men need to forgive. Sometimes women.

If men are to lead, that includes leading in love, in peace, in truth, in self-examination, in forgiveness, and in repentance. Some of the comments here make it sound like women don’t deserve patience until they shape up. But a leader will be the first one ready to offer reconciliation, so that when conditions are right, he’ll be prepared. And he’ll be preparing in advance, regardless of the other side.

Do we consider ourselves so perfect that there is no more work left for men, but we’re simply waiting on women to change? Are we so happy with discovering a little truth that we’ve stopped looking for more? I know I’m not perfect, and I don’t think anyone here would be so arrogant as to say that further improvement is not needed, but if we are not yet perfect, then the mockery of women by men, and the side-stepping of their points in blog posts, is a little rich.

I still fail to see the real benefit of the “Just like running a restaurant” post the other day, and the 10’s and maybe 100’s of comments. Even this blog post seems to generate more heat than light, and it didn’t even touch on the topic of anger and bitterness.

To a large extent, it doesn’t matter what women do or do not do. It matters what we do. We need to be the change we want to see, not just in the world, but in our families and in our relationships and in our women as well.

Want a logical wife? Be logical. Want a faithful wife? Be faithful. Want a wise wife? Be wise (in the selection of your wife too). Want a forgiving wife? Forgive. And so on. It won’t guarantee change in others, but the important part is that we ourselves are changing for the better.

But want an angry wife? Be angry. Want a mocking wife? Mock and nitpick. She’ll pick right up on your habits, even if it is to mock some random stranger in a restaurant.

We should not expect more of our women than we do of ourselves. If we get angry with angry feminist blogs, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that women are not running toward an angry and mocking manosphere either.

anon #2 is correct in as much as previous generations of men bear some responsibility. imnobody is also correct in that he is not responsible for that. At the same time, I could have said exactly what imnobody said and I have never been a supporter of feminism either, yet my life has been affected by it in a way that I am not particularly happy about.

I’m also Gen-X and I believe my generation got the shaft big time. We were lied to, plain and simple. There was always an underlying feeling that things weren’t right that I couldn’t really put my finger on. It was finding manosphere blogs that helped me to define the problem. Now I at least have the tools to counter whatever crap my daughters pick up and do my best to show them the truth so that they might avoid what I didn’t.

In spite of my own indoctrination, I voted Libertarian when I was 18 and have never voted for a leftist party. Now, I think I will just stop voting on principle – because I agree that giving women (and people who didn’t own land) the vote was a big mistake. I won’t be held responsible for this shit either, because I have not had a hand in it any more than all of you and my life is what it is now thanks to this female-dominance that has been foisted on us by earlier generations of feminism.

It does seem to be the case that, in general, men and women are replaying the story of Genesis, but that does not mean that individuals in each generation are similarly culpable.

“If “we” means a rather small handful of societal leaders who got certified by elite institutions to run law practices, become judges, become Congressmen, run corporations, run foundations, etc. then I’ll accept that. Problem is, those people do not read or post on blogs like this one.”

Yes! There’s a reason that working class whites are hugely underrepresented at institutions like Harvard. They don’t want people with the values of that upbringing influencing society.

Pretty much. don’t want to have your children torn from you and your assets and a majority of your future earnings stripped from you without so much as a reason? Well that’s simple as then isn’t it. Just don’t do it to her. I can’t think why all those silly men didn’t think of that earlier….

Chris sez: “It’s all the fault of men! Man up!” One wonders if he has ever tried to reconcile with someone who hated him and didn’t want to reconcile. The best that happens in such a situation is you are ignored. This pansy crap of “reconciliation” to the point of repeatedly banging your head against a wall is the height of stupidity.

I read the article. Miss Duffy’s point seems to be “I’m paying lipservice to the idea that feminism is to blame, but the mannosphere is a bad thing because that’s what I feel.” At the end of the article, she talkes about Drapper like that’s who the mannosphere participants are aspiring to be. There are many types of people in the mannosphere and almost as many different emphases. Just because some of them are bound to become jerks doesn’t mean the majority set out to do this. She even says men got behind feminism for the easy sex, and so are to blame for the situation. This ignores the alpha/beta divide… it’s like arguing that North America is to blame if Canada unilaterally declares war on Belgium. That’s just too broad of a stroke to be a reasonable argument.

Also, there is an accusation that the mannosphere is itself reactionary. This is false. Men have always offered each other advice on personal matters. Much of this evidence still exists in the historical record. During the course of the 20th century, father/son communication on such topics broke down to a point where peer/peer advice became more common. This shift happened to coincide with the shift from written letters to internet communication. Viewed like this, the mannosphere atmosphere is no different than a loose collection of 19th century fraternal organizations. That atmosphere just shifted medium.-

Lastly, Duffy states that an emphasis on self-study and improvement on the part of men hampers relationship potential. Based on my personal experience (and the experience of other mannosphere commenters), I see women as selecting men based on alpha qualities. Women are telling men, by their actions… which speak louder than words, that men must improve themselves (in the alpha areas) in order to have a proper relationship. Remember, in terms of selectivity, the first selection is the most important.

“Husbands should know how to lure their wives happily to bed. They should know how to lead a family with authority and respect. They should understand women’s hormonal cycles and respond accordingly, or refuse to respond with alarm, as is often the more appropriate course of action. And above all, they should be happy about being men.”

“I thought this was quite good.”

Of course you did, cuz it fits right in with your Married Game/I’m a patriarch cuz my wife lets me be one schtick. Husbands shouldn’t have to “lure” their wives to bed, “happily” or otherwise. Wives should simply sleep with their husbands as part of their duty, as part of the deal. “Luring” women to bed is what single men have to do, in order to have sex. For a married man to come home from work, put his paycheck in their joint account, pay to feed, clothe, shoe, entertain, shelter, etc, etc a woman, only to be told that if he wants sex from her, he has to know how to “lure” her “happily to bed” is a gross insult and injustice. If a woman demands luring, she should stay single. If she marries, she should sleep with her husband, barring actual physical disablity. Period.

As for leading a family with authority and respect, this is not something that men fail to do because of shortcomings on their part, but because of the status of our laws and society. Attempt to get respect from a wife, try to exercize authority over her, and you can quite easily wind up in Domestic Violence court, branded for life as a “Wife beater,” even if you are found innocent, which is unlikely, given the kangaroo court procedures.

Hormone cycle? Please. An adult woman should be able to control herself, wherever she is in her hormone cycle. If she can’t, she shouldn’t marry. Nor should she have anything other than a menial job. If women can’t behave like adults because of their “hormones,” then they should not take on adult responsibilities. It shouldn’t be on their husbands (or their bosses or coworkers or anyone else) to “understand” or “respond accordingly.” Behave yourself, or go lie in the crib until you can!

Oh I agree. The vote was a terrible idea. It gave voice to a part of society that had a natural drive to seek a provider rather than be a provider. This changed the face of government in really odd ways. And I hardly vanished. Its been like twelve hours. You really need to scale down your own self image.

@Omnipoton or something like thatThat is also supposing that Feminists are seeking reconciliation, which they’re not.

Not all are. The vast majority aren’t. However, this is the same problem as men claiming “hey I didn’t collude!” Most women involved with feminism got there because they were told it was the right and good thing to do. In fact, one of the reasons I like Dalrock is that most of his posts boil down to, “this is neither right nor good!” Women are human and most want to be recognized as good. You point out what a dreadful mess they are causing and _by nature_ they will seek to change because they are helpers. They might throw the be all and end all of hissy fits in the process but I think that in the end there is hope.

@BrendenIt has been tried (in the Church) and has failed in full, flying colors. Why? Because women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism. That is — feminism, sans the sexual stuff about abortion and casual sex. That is — feminism without “sex pozzie” feminism. That is the ground upon which Christian women want reconciliation, and it is no ground for reconciliation at all, but rather a ground for consolidation of the “gains”, in terms of relative power, for women vis-a-vis men, as a result of “accepted” mainstream feminism.

Because they’ve been led to believe that’s the way they should behave. It doesn’t help that we allow “tame’s” in the ministry. That is, we’ve been setting up effeminates in ministry for years. This has resulted in that most horrible of meme’s, “servant leader”. I liked a friends response to anyone who talks about being a servant leader:
“I usually say, “I want to be a servant leader, like Jesus or Robert E. Lee.” Normally that shuts ’em up. ”

@JasonI am constantly surprised at the amount of effort put in by OrdinaryWomen(TM) to discourage slut shaming and other behaviours. It can’t be because this is of advantage to them because it manifestly isn’t.

Very true. But it isn’t “nice”. It disturbs the emotional playing field. So, yes, you are absolutely right. But they would rather someone else take care of that problem and not be involved in it.

@UmsThe only significant masculine christian religion left is orthodox christianity.

And fading so fast as it hits the West. Especially amongst the Greeks. And I speak as a marginal Orthodox who attends at a Greek church.

@BuckIn my field, LE, men have allowed “Bambi-the meat-gobbler” to slide through the academy, field training and then go on to coddled careers with cushy non-hazardous assignments, usually at higher pay, all for a wink, a smile, and perhaps a cleaned pipe or two.

God save you. My own field is starting to be infected with female managers. Its the death of innovation. In my own small town the police chief is a woman and we have the highest crime in the region. Her “get tough” is nothing of the sort.

@CLNow I at least have the tools to counter whatever crap my daughters pick up and do my best to show them the truth so that they might avoid what I didn’t.

I’ve already told my daughter she will go a bit crazy at twelve but I’ll still love her. So far we’re cool with that.

TFH – “There is so much ignorance in Chris’s paragraphs above that it is stunning.”

It seems Chris is attempting to conflate a theory of male leadership which might work on an individual level with a design for men (collectively) to lead women.

It doesn’t really work that way.

In individual circumstances, woman who respect and admire their man will be more inclined to react in-kind to his examples. But, even at the level of individual relationships, a lack of respect for the man will effectively negate any efforts on his part to lead (insert Marital Game discussion here).

Thus, when trying to “scale-up” what (sometimes) works at the individual level, the prevailing fact that women in general have no respect (let alone care for) for men, there really isn’t much chance that women are going to be willing to emulate the “good example” men might set out for them.

Chris is probably well intentioned in his views, but sorely misguided, I’m afraid.

“If men are to lead, that includes leading in love, in peace, in truth, in self-examination, in forgiveness, and in repentance. Some of the comments here make it sound like women don’t deserve patience until they shape up. But a leader will be the first one ready to offer reconciliation, so that when conditions are right, he’ll be prepared. And he’ll be preparing in advance, regardless of the other side.”

More “man up” bullshit. I don’t particularly want to “lead.” I want to live my life with the same freedom, choices and opportunities that women have. As for reconciliation, that’s on the oppressors, not the oppressed. We, the men, are the oppressed. If the oppressors want to reconcile they should (1) change their substantive behavior (ie, stop oppressing us) and (2) apologize for the harms they have done. Then we can reconcile.

“Do we consider ourselves so perfect that there is no more work left for men, but we’re simply waiting on women to change? Are we so happy with discovering a little truth that we’ve stopped looking for more? I know I’m not perfect, and I don’t think anyone here would be so arrogant as to say that further improvement is not needed, but if we are not yet perfect, then the mockery of women by men, and the side-stepping of their points in blog posts, is a little rich.”

What is this “we are not perfect” crap? Who said we were? Were Blacks perfect, when they were slaves or subject to Jim Crow? Of course not, but of what signficance was that? None. It had nothing to do with the justice of their cause. The “truths” that I’m interested may not be the same ones as you are. Frankly, all we have in common is that we are men. And, as men, we are the oppressed. I want to end the oppression. Beyond that, I have my agenda and you have yours. I have not the slightest interest in “improving” myself according to your lights.

“To a large extent, it doesn’t matter what women do or do not do.”

Um, yes it does. Cuz we live in a democratic society. Women hold poltical power. They also have social power. That’s like saying, in the Civil Rights Movment, it didn’t matter what the white folks did. Totally wrong.

“It matters what we do.”

Sure.

“We need to be the change we want to see, not just in the world, but in our families and in our relationships and in our women as well.”

You’ve got to be kidding! “Be the change we want?” Gobbledygook bullshit! I can’t “be the change,” I need the law and societal attitudes and practices to change. I can’t “be” that. This is just the kind of new ages BS that subverts actual movements for change. Instead of having tangible goals, rooted in external reality, progress towards which can be assessed against objective metrics, we get squishy, innner directed BS devoid of contents. I want VAWA repealed. I can’t “be” that change. I want fairness in custody decisions, I can’t “be” that either.

“Want a logical wife? Be logical. Want a faithful wife? Be faithful. Want a wise wife? Be wise (in the selection of your wife too). Want a forgiving wife? Forgive. And so on. It won’t guarantee change in others, but the important part is that we ourselves are changing for the better.”

Total bullshit. There are plenty of logical, faithful, forgiving men out there were with crazy, cheating, grudge holding wives. I’ll grant that it makes sense to be wise in your selection, but, even there, you are still giving a woman licence to screw you over, and women change over time,, usually for the worse.

“We should not expect more of our women than we do of ourselves. If we get angry with angry feminist blogs, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that women are not running toward an angry and mocking manosphere either.”

LOL! How dare those African Americans get angry at the white suprematists!

In this ‘sphere (particularly among Spearhead commenters), there is insufficient anger towards manginas/whiteknights, and too much towards average women. Dalrock’s commentariat is closer to addressing this hierarchy proportionally.

Good observation. I’d also like to point out that Average Women have many unconscious feminist beliefs, which is why they are included in your list. Absent from your list is the Good Women, which although rare, do exist. The Average Women should aspire to become Good Women by facing the truth and realizing it is better to be a follower of a good man than to seek empowerment.

I’m not expecting much of this to happen, but it is possible for a man to learn to identify individual Good Women suitable for relationships. He still must lead and consider her potential, rather than wait for the Perfect Woman (which does not exist).

“What is nonsensical about reconciliation? If reconciliation is not what we’re after, then what’s the point?”
and
“Do we consider ourselves so perfect that there is no more work left for men, but we’re simply waiting on women to change? Are we so happy with discovering a little truth that we’ve stopped looking for more? I know I’m not perfect, and I don’t think anyone here would be so arrogant as to say that further improvement is not needed, but if we are not yet perfect, then the mockery of women by men, and the side-stepping of their points in blog posts, is a little rich.”

Part of your answer is in Grerp’s response which I’ve pasted below:

“Clearly, there are huge problems, many of them caused by feminism, but women refuse to see them and in fact say that these problems can only be solved with more feminism. If conflict is not what people want, then they have to talk about what sacrifices they are going to make and what they are willing to concede. This is true for both Boomers and feminists – who want to have their cake and eat it too.”

Brendan also said:

“Because women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism.”

and

“Women don’t want reconciliation other than on feminism’s own terms (apart from a few outliers who are interested/willing to live as cultural separatists). As a CLASS, there is no interest in Christian women in any kind of “sex reconciliation” on any other basis than the “advances” feminism has made for the female position, while discarding the sex-pozzie stuff.”

In sum:

There can be no reconcilation between men and women as genders as things now stand. I’ve examined the landscape and I reluctantly conclude that grerp, AnonReader, zed, Dalrock, Brendan and their compatriots that there is a gender war, that’s it’s not improving, that nearly every woman from the most raving radfem down to the most devout traditionalist conservative likes it just the way it is, and that it’s going to worsen before it improves.

Reconciliation would require:
1. Acknowledgment by women as a class of feminism’s horrendous damage to both men and women
2. Acknowledgment by women as a class of the role they played in it
3. Willingness to make sacrifices and to relinquish the “gains” feminism made for women
a. Complete overhaul of divorce laws across the board, nationwide. Any spouse, male or female, found “at fault” in a divorce proceeding forfeits alimony forever,with prejudice. Alimony is cut off at a maximum of 2 years. Child support and alimony obligations are easily adjusted based on the payer’s actual (NOT IMPUTED) ability to pay. Case-by-case basis for child support obligations. Divorce overall is much more difficult. Minimum waiting periods from filing to final judgment. Elimination of “no fault” divorce.
b. Mandatory paternity testing for all children at birth
c. Paternity testing on demand by any father at any time and a rule of noninterference and mandatory compliance by the mother
d. The right to end paternal obligations in the event of paternity fraud, a right to seek judicial declarations of nonpaternity; and a cause of action to recover money damages from mothers and/or other perpetrators of paternity fraud/cuckoldry, all of which may be prosecuted at any time unhindered by any statutes of limitation or repose
e. Complete overhaul of state and federal sexual harassment laws
f. Complete overhaul of state and federal anti-rape and rape shield laws
g. Beefing up penalties for women who consume state law enforcement resources with false rape claims and false domestic violence claims
h. Repeal of VAWA
4. Wives’ willingness to return to their rightful places in submission to their husbands
5. The Church’s restoration and resumption of its obligation to support marriages and families, teaching husband dominance and wife submission, and a return of women to their rightful places in the Church as described in the New Testament.

7man explained why men get upset and angry and who men are upset and angry with. Women should pay attention to this because it is to their benefit to do so.

Dumb women will rally to defend the feminsits since that is the nature of Team Woman. Average women will get confused about why quieter men seem angry at them, but if they can stay the impulse to take it personally, there is hope for learning and thus being upgraded to Good Women. If individual women would learn to STFU and only fight their own battles, then they would not be so pissy, discontented and butt hurt.

Another thing to remember is this: Many of the men in the manosphere have tried reconciliation.

They have tried living with shrill harpy wives who hated them.

They tried to be nice, caring, compassionate, and loving to wives who cheated on them, divorced them, stole their life’s savings and turned their children against them..

They have tried to get along with stark raving mad feminists who call men rapists, liars and douchebags simply because they are men.

They have tried dating women only to be nuclear rejected, publicly humiliated, used for free meals and entertainment, and patronized with “Let’s just be friends”. Some men have been accused of rape, assault or domestic violence for doing nothing other than (1) pushing hard for sex and breaking down her defenses, which she later claims was against her will or “overcame” her will or (2) being the unfortunate man on the receiving end of a woman who now regrets that one night stand or same-night lay.

They tried working in countless workplaces with and training women who were lazy or disruptive or grossly incompetent or unqualified.

They tried talking with women, reasoning with them, only to be met with illogic and shaming language:

“NAWALT!”
“That’s not what I said!”
“That’s not fair! Hookups have to be fair because I say they have to be fair!”
“It’s true because I believe it, because the women I know believe it, and the women in my church believe it!”
“It’s true because the women who comment on my blog believe it!”
“You’re just a bitter old fat guy who can’t get laid!”
“You need to be more attractive and learn Game so you can marry a woman who needs a husband!”
“You need to man up and marry the slut!”
“You need to man up and stop playing those silly video games!”
“You HATE me! You HATE women!”
“What kind of people are you!?”
“They were youthful indiscretions! How dare you judge me! Take that log out of your eye before you try to take the speck out of my eye, you pinch-faced, hypermoralist hypocrite!”

And all the while, men have come to women and said, in effect, “Please, just tell us what you want. We will do what you ask. We will give you what you want. We are your men. We love you and care about you. We want you to be happy and content.”

And the men listened. And the men gave them what the women said they wanted. And the men did what they asked. And in return, the men were treated to more: complaining, nagging, cheating, divorcing, deception, fraud, theft, false accusations, use, abuse, patronizing, loss due to incompetence, joblessness, economic impoverishment, illogic, and shaming language.

So people around here are not too interested in listening to claims that it is men who have to lead as a class, or that men have to change, or have to make more concessions. Not when every inch of ground given up has resulted only in demands that more and more and more be conceded. I’ve even had to tell my wife something like this:

“I won’t be making any more concessions or putting forth any more effort than I already am into this marriage. You want change? YOU do it. You want improvement? YOU do it. You want our marriage to be better? YOU work to improve it. I’m already doing all I can and all I believe I need to do. YOU will have to carry it from here. YOU will have to sacrifice. YOU will have to acknowledge YOUR role in making it better.

When women do that, when they start changing as a class, when they start conceding ground — then we can talk reconciliation.

The comments about democracy and feminism have always interested me. In South Asia, or let’s say India specifically, how has this played itself out? I assume women have the right to vote there. Is it a case of India being only a few decades behind the West in terms of feminist legislation?

“I am constantly surprised at the amount of effort put in by OrdinaryWomen(TM) to discourage slut shaming and other behaviours. It can’t be because this is of advantage to them because it manifestly isn’t. The only women advantaged by the removal of slut shaming are the sluts themselves.”

Yes and no, I think. There’s more to it than that. The removal of slut shaming means women can sleep around as much or as little as they want.

Just about every woman I’ve ever known, including my own sister, has confessed a ONS or an SNL. A time when she disregarded reason, practicality, prior commitments, even boyfriends, and went ahead and had sex with a beautiful, gorgeous alpha man who tingled her so hard she couldn’t stand it. It is totally out of character for her (at least outwardly). The stars have aligned: she had a breakup. Or she was drunk enough to take the plunge. Or her roommate is gone for the weekend and she’s got the dorm room to herself. Or a dream Adonis playa, exactly her physical type, showed some interest in her at the club during one of her girls nights out. Whatever it was, it was the right place, right time, right man, right circumstances.

She knew — KNEW — she was going to get pumped and dumped, and she didn’t care one bit. She just wanted that alpha cock, just this once (or twice or thrice). She saw her chance and she took it. She went home with him, he screwed her, she screwed him, and that was that. And it was a pump and dump, just like she knew it would be. And she never did it again, or maybe she did it a couple of times over the course of her life. .

I don’t think this makes her a slut, necessarily. The point is that the removal of slut shaming in part indirectly benefits the nonslut who does this once or twice. Removal of slut shaming helps the hamster rationalize why she did it.

“It was just this once.”
“He was so beautiful, I couldn’t help myself!”
“I’m not a slut because it happened only once/twice/ a few times.”
“OK, I got that out of my system, Won’t do THAT again!”

The real problem to me is that none of these rationalizations gets to the heart of the matter which is: she did it because she could and because there were no restraints on her. So… what WOULD restrain her? A promise? Mutual obligations? An LTR? Marriage? Her own conscience? She has a conscience but it didn’t keep her from doing it once. Who’s to say if the opportunity presents itself again that she won’t succumb again? RIght now the only thing restraining her is her own sense of morality and conscience. But she’s shown if the circumstances are right, even THAT won’t stop her.

So the average woman with a ONS or SNL or 2 or 3 might not make her a slut. But it does help her rationalize.past behaviors.

I have no doubt that many many women throw caution to the wind like this a few times, it doesn’t cause them to cheat. But really — in today’s society with Marriage 2.0, the man has no assurances whatsoever that a woman having done this before won’t do it again unless she demonstrates a clear, unequivocal rejection of her past behavior and change of heart. Even that is no guarantee. The solution is to put teeth in “fault” marriage laws: You cheat, you forfeit alimony, you may have to pay damages and the innocent spouse’s attorney fees, and it will affect the property distribution.

Jason:
The conduct is no strings attached sex. The removal of societal, legal and moral restrictions on NSA sex benefits the slut with 50 notches or the Church girl with one notch. There is no moral or legal difference between the two, and there is no societal reprisal either way.

“(2) being the unfortunate man on the receiving end of a woman who now regrets that one night stand or same-night lay. ”

Then don’t do that. Christianity warns that this will result in misery. If you have done that you have practically asked for trouble. I never did that, though I was sorely tempted, and I have had a better long term life for it. Yes it is more common for men to fall into that trap. No, it is still not acceptable.

Yes, women who do this should be (as a general rule) utterly forgotten as marriage material.

As to Asia I think they are in a bit of a slow slide right now. India has so much mass that it will be ok for a while. However both China and India have a sex ratio problem that will likely result in them hitting far harder times than we have. The West will win as it has in these moments in the past. I’m an optimist. The West will die one day, I’m also Christian.

“However, one should bear in mind that there were factors aiding feminism that were out of anybody’s control. Remember that feminism 2.0, the rabid, poisonous form, came to life due to the 1968 cultural revolution. So are boomer men to blame?”

For me the biggest “out of anybody’s control” factor is cheap energy. Cheap energy made an efficient social structure less pressing.

“In this ‘sphere (particularly among Spearhead commenters), there is insufficient anger towards manginas/whiteknights, and too much towards average women. Dalrock’s commentariat is closer to addressing this hierarchy proportionally.”

Which I agree with. But before that you wrote this:

“Red pill men and manginas are so entirely different from each other that they should never be lumped together for any such discussion. Manginas are a third gender, for all intents and purposes.”

Men who exhibit mangina behavior do not cease to be men just because you say so, or because we don’t like their behavior.

You/we have to decide: Do we hold men–generally–to be responsible, or not? I think this is a core decision to be made for red-pill men; red-pill Christian men in particular. I don’t read Dalrock’s blog enough to know whether you’re a Christian or not.

Very gratified on responses, so if anyone happens to see this, here are some replies.

The “we” I’m referring to is to American men as a whole, regardless of race, creed, or immigration date. I am considering them as one man represented by Adam in the book of Breishit (Genesis). My consideration is mostly spiritual, but also moral as in “what can be done by men as a whole to fix this”. Therefore I do not blame any single individual male or female.

I am trying to look at this in a different way. I do not believe G-d told us this story simply to make us feel horrible. Nor does he dump is into difficult situations just to amuse Himself. He knew we would be in this situation all those many years ago, He knew we’d need to understand what is going on. I believe that a key to that understanding lies in this story. There are lessons here that He wants us to learn.

If this problem does not get fixed, then quite simply America is finished. It will inevitably slide into a totalitarian state, which it is well on the way to doing. And this is aside from the mounting insanity we see around us in world affairs. Not a single man or woman in the country can truly be said to be responsible for the current situation. The question is, what does G-d want us to do now that we are in it?

I believe that the first chapter of Genesis has something for us. What that something is, I truly don’t know. But the similarities are too obvious to ignore. At least for me. Maybe that somethign is to do what Dalrock and others are doing. Just speak truth as simply as possible.

I’ve actually been considering the curse in Genesis 3 recently. I’m of the type of theology that believes God allows every curse to turn into a blessing based on our reaction to it. The woman’s curse was:
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[f] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

A woman who loves children I’ve found has no remembered pain. She only remembers the good. A woman who gives herself to her husband tends not to have a dictator or in the worst case to not notice it. A woman that fights these things has only pain and Carousel dictators. Of course the feminist religionists would have us believe that this means that they lived in perfect equality prior to the Fall. To cure that we turn to the mans curse:
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Our curse is predictably longer. Listening to our wife’s (completely without applied reason) results in only endless hardship for us. A striving that produces no true fruit. If however we take the blessing we will sweat and suffer still but we have shall have some small rewards here and later.

Also, on collective guilt. We can not blame women for saying things like “NAWALT” or the variation “NACWALT” and then not accept some collective guilt, no matter the generation, on our side. It is logically inconsistent.

Some people here don’t seem to understand that moral codes are only adhered to as long as they’re backed up by economic reality. Single motherhood used to be frowned upon by the Church in the West, for example. The people agreed because single motherhood normally meant a woman and her children had to live in grinding poverty (or the woman had to put her bastard up for adoption and face the disappearance of her marriage prospects due to her reputation for loose sexual mores).

When this reality is altered through the introduction of welfare, court-ordered child support and female economic independence, it’s no longer shameful to be a single mother because the terrible consequences are just not there. Any attempts at shaming single mothers in such an environment will therefore be met with ridicule, dismissal and even condemnations for being ’judgmental’, ’sexist’ etc. And when this happens, slutty behavior also ceases to be shameful, because the reason it was frowned upon in the past is that it normally resulted in unwanted pregnancy, which in turn normally meant the mother facing grinding poverty, for the reasons I listed above.

Slut shaming never actually worked because it wasn’t the shaming itself that worked. Women never cared about the slut label in itself. The reason they used to avoid that label is that even in the developed West it normally had concrete, significant and just plainly bad consequences: deep poverty, zero marriage prospects and social ostracism.

Chris, let me describe a hypothetical situation, and then you can discuss reconciliation.

Let’s suppose that there are two people living in the same dwelling, Chris and Leslie. They get along most of the time, but sometimes Chris and Leslie start shouting at each other as part of an argument. Suppose that Leslie pushes Chris into a wall, and Chris pushes back. Both wind up with a bruise. The noise results in a visit from the police for “domestic disturbance”.

Now, will anyone be arrested? Well, that depends on who Chris and Leslie are. If both of them are men, or both are women, then likely the issue of an arrest will be up to the discretion of the responding officer(s). It will depend on a totality of the situation – is someone obviously injured badly, is someone demanding arrest of the other, and so forth. But if one of them is a man, and the other is a woman, then in many states the man is going to go to jail. Doesn’t matter if he’s injured, doesn’t matter if she begs the cop(s) not to arrest him, thanks to feminist written law in many states a call for “domestic disturbance” requires that any man involved be arrested.

It gets a bit worse. Under the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control, which track with state laws, the following can be considered “Domestic Violence”: shouting, refusing to provide money, colliding with subject while entering or leaving a doorway. And DV mandates arrest in many states.

So in my little hypothetical, even though the injuries are slight, and equal, i.e. both Chris and Leslie are equally slightly injured, the only way for one of them to go to jail without question is if it’s a male/female pair. Because some laws are written to punish men, and only men, regardless of who may have committed any actual assault.

This at the micro level influences relationships across the country. A version of this one-sidedness affects relationships in work places: many men are now quite careful to always have witnesses if they have a one-on-one meeting with a woman. The “men bad, women good” premise of mandatory arrest in domestic disturbance can be found embedded in many, many other laws and regulations. It gives women a very powerful tool that can be used on a whim to ruin a man’s life – and often there is no practical recourse, nor is there any serious punishment for false accusations.

Seems to me that you are asking men to accept all of the above and more as status quo, and just pretend that the last 40 or so years didn’t happen, in the interests of harmony and reconciliation. You don’t seem to be interested in anything that women might need to do, to effect reconciliation.
It’s all up to men. We are to lead those that have refused to follow us for decades, and it’s all our fault if they balk. It’s all our fault that bad laws exist, that women can and do use to ruin men’s lives – even if we worked to oppose some of those laws as they were being past.

Kind of interesting how you don’t seem to see any reason for women to change anything at all. Wonder why that is?

“Women don’t nag because they want their demands to be met. Rather women nag to see if the man is man enough to push back or dismiss the demand humorously (after which the woman can then be attracted to a man).”
I don’t know … the other thinking is that women are terrified of nagging men who have other options.
Maybe women only nag men who cannot move on without penalty. Hence the correct answer to that situation is never to be in a position where you cannot leave or are responsible for her decisions (she’s equal, strong and independent, so that should not be an issue, amirite?)
e.g. MGTOW.

GKChestertonAlso, on collective guilt. We can not blame women for saying things like “NAWALT” or the variation “NACWALT” and then not accept some collective guilt, no matter the generation, on our side. It is logically inconsistent.

All this talk of reconciliation, male responsibility, collective guilt, God, Adam, Eve and the snake is a waste of cyberspace. Whether any of these is real, feasible, desirable or not is completely immaterial. What DOES matter is that the current feminist system would not have been possible without very concrete and long-term technological changes (which in turn led to cultural, political and finally legal changes), discussed in detail in the comment thread of the “Will the real Sheila…” post. Male-female relations in the West will change when their economic underpinning changes. Nothing less is sufficient. Simple as that. Productive, law-abiding beta males will be re-empowered when their social value rises, which will happen when their economic value rises, which in turn will only happen when they become scarce.

Chris says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“If men in general are responsible (at least in an enabling sense) for the success of feminism (as many have claimed in the comments right here), then blaming ourselves would seem to be the correct response.”

Listen up Pollyanna, just because some men went that route doesn’t mean I’m guilty of what they did. I’m not the one to make this mess. I’ll only vote for politicians who understand there is a mess and want to fix it.

By your “thinking”, if a man murders someone they could just arrest and excute you for the crime. I don’t think you can sell that to any reasonable man.

@TFH
“deti’s *second* comment above shows that most women just don’t see men as fully human. This is not an exaggeration. Destroying a man’s life to deliver an extremely small benefit to a woman is a purchase most women have no problem with. While they will never say it, the well-being of 1 woman is worth more than the well-being of 10 men.”

I think most women cannot see men who are not their first, as fully human.
Which is why it’s also the women’s fault they have trouble with men. Since they CHOSE to indulge in the cock carousel, why should any later man be held responsible for her previous decision?

Women can’t have it both ways (but they will try). After all, chivalry is based on the premise that women are unaccountable, and also have few rights.
It seems they want the bit with knights and gallantry, but not the part about being chaste or ladylike.

Thanks for the response. One question at the outset what is “SNL” as I assume is it not “Saturday Night Live” especially in the context as “ONS” is obviously one night stand. Also I agree with your observation about the solution being fault marriage and the like. Although I might suggest given the political climate offering two different sorts of marriage, one with fault and one without as they do in covenant marriages might be a workable approach.

One observation though, I don’t know if it was your intent to come across like this, but you make it sound like “being a slut” apart from the social shaming of the past is something that is largely consequence free (BTW, I would think it more than reasonable to label any girl who has a ONS a slut regardless of what their hamster tries to tell them).

Even if you could get rid of all disease and have 100% effective contraception (both a pipe dream it seems) this would not transform slutty behavior into something benign.

I would contend (and I think the data does back me up) that human beings (men and women) are not wired in a way that is compatible with the slut/pua lifestyle and that such behavior is profoundly damaging to them.

After all, both men and women are made to bond at a biochemical level with the people they have sex with and that having sex with multiple partners will damage and finally destroy the ability to bond in this fashion. Though it seems nobody wants to warn young people about this.

The data (IIRC) showed that sex before marriage with your future spouse increased your risk of divorce by some substantial amount, but that one _other_ sexual partner increased your risk of divorce by 50% roughly, while a second other partner increases it to around 75% and (Again IIRC) it increased in a roughly logarithmic fashion from there as the ability to make bonds was worn away further. All the damage is done, probably in a largely irreparable fashion quite quickly.

So the value of slut shaming is exceptionally high as any woman that has “been around the block” is likely to make an extremely poor marriage partner. By giving this slut shaming away women are giving up an extremely powerful signal about their ability to be a stable marriage partner. How this is in their interests is a mystery to me.

Thanks for the reply. Also thanks for the insight into the fall, I hadn’t thought of the curse in that way but it does seem profoundly biblical. It fits, I think, into the two ways of viewing this life as a prison or a hotel. If it is a prison, then all things considered it might not be that bad, but if it is supposed to be a hotel, then WTF are we paying for?

SNL = same night lay. Man, usually a pickup artist, takes home and bangs a woman a few hours after meeting her. functional equivalent of ONS.

Fault marriage, elimination fo no fault marriage, and economic consequences are the long term answer. But those things aren’t going to happen soon.

The only real consequences of sluthood right now are (1) impaired or destroyed pair bonding ability; and (2) STDs. The economic consequences have been removed. High partner counts in men don’t seem to correlate with poor pair bonding or divorce rates, since they usually don’t marry at all or at least it has not been studied. It’s women with high partner counts that have the impaired bonding and increased divorce rates, IIRC.

The elimination of slut shaming benefits all women in this SMP because it obviates the consequences for both the one-time carousel rider and the career rider as I said above. Elimination of slut shaming was a natural consequence of feminism, the sexual revolution, female economic independence, cheap and effective birth control, and cheap and safe abortion.

I don’t have much objection to your list of requirements for reconciliation. I’m not an American, so I’m not up to speed on your list of legal issues, so I’ll leave that for you. But I would especially agree with #4 and #5.

What I’m trying to convey is that we don’t have to wait for women to submit before we lead our wives as Christ leads the church. If Christ had waited to see if we’d shape up before He came to die for our sins, and instead mocked us from heaven for our failures, we’d be doomed. Yes, Christian women have serious obligations, but so do men. And I would argue that the impetus is on the men.

This is not some excuse to ignore bad behaviour, either in men or in women. But impotent rage won’t help anyone, and neither does mockery. (I’m not accusing you of that, but pointing at some of the general tone on this and other sites.)

I think I disagree about removing “no fault divorce”. It seems that offering two different marriage contracts, one with fault and one without (and no ability to turn fault into no-fault) would solve the marriage problem just as effectively without giving the other side the ability to get nearly as irate over it. In short order only an idiot would take up the no fault option anyway which would be in time the same as seeking to revoke the no fault form.

Actually I don’t think the economic consequences have been removed. There is a very strong correlation between single motherhood/divorce and poverty and no amount of misandric attempts at redistribution has magically managed to fix that.

I think I disagree about it being of benefit though. Well maybe not, in the SMP I guess it makes sense in some twisted fashion, but in the MMP it is catastrophic as it has removed a fundamental measure of determining if a woman is going to be capable of being a good spouse. For the women who are capable of still pair bonding properly this is a substantial loss. All of feminism seems to be (actually leftism in general) a drive to deny that there is such a thing as reality and that they can magically wish away and consequences they don’t like. Unfortunately for everyone such idiots refuse to learn they are mistaken.

1) If Chris and Leslie are male and female, they shouldn’t be living together unless they are married. And they shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married.

2) I agree that the laws as they are now can indeed be unjust. Unjust laws should be changed.

3) The male should show leadership and not push or strike back during an argument. The male is stronger and should behave with that in mind. Even shouting is unnecessary. It shows he has lost control of his own emotions. He should demonstrate how to handle disagreement properly, by living it out. If the female rants and raves and cannot be reasoned with, he can always leave and tell her that he’ll talk about this when she is in a rational state of mind.

In other words, men should not just throw up their hands and accept the status quo and give up hope of change. They should *be* the change they want to see. And in this case, that means refusing to stoop to her level by having an emotional shouting and pushing match.

I googled it, filtered out the Saturday Night Live hits, and learned that it’s “Same Night Lay”, meaning, when a woman and a man meet for the very first time, and have sex the same day (or, more usually, night).

Often, the SNL is also a one-night-stand (ONS) — but not always. Occasionally people who go to bed the same day they meet, actually end up in relationships with each other. I’ve yet to meet a married couple that began with a SNL (or, that admitted it), but I suppose it’s possible.

@Chris
Anger is a legitimate response to many situations, and is in fact a restrained response considering the long list of injustices and indignities males are faced with in secular and religious situations. Mockery is also a legitimate tool when dealing with falsehood. Debate like a man – with facts and stuff, not with blanket statements.

In one way you are (accidentally) correct. The impetus is on men. By default, as men are the only rational actors on the stage. However the actions chosen by men aren’t the ones you have in mind. Double down on the rhetoric, perhaps that will help.

Chris2) I agree that the laws as they are now can indeed be unjust. Unjust laws should be changed.

That’s nice. So what?

3) The male should show leadership and not push or strike back during an argument.

So men have no right to defend themselves against women, is that correct? If she stabs him with a carving knife, then pulls back her arm to stab him again, he should just stand there and take his stabbing like a man, right?

The male is stronger and should behave with that in mind. Even shouting is unnecessary. It shows he has lost control of his own emotions.

Have you ever been married, or in a long term relationship? Just wondering.

He should demonstrate how to handle disagreement properly, by living it out. If the female rants and raves and cannot be reasoned with, he can always leave and tell her that he’ll talk about this when she is in a rational state of mind.

And if while he’s gone, she destroys his property, or calls the police and tells lies to have him arrested, what would you suggest? These are not hypotheticals. These are things that have happened to men I know.

In other words, men should not just throw up their hands and accept the status quo and give up hope of change.

Excuse me, that’s what you’re suggesting – that men not be angry about unjust laws, that men not be angry about bad behavior by women, that men just shut up, “man up”, and “lead” by catering to the whims of women. In other words, “lead” by doing what women tell them to do.

They should *be* the change they want to see. And in this case, that means refusing to stoop to her level by having an emotional shouting and pushing match.

Again I ask if you are now, or have ever, been married or in a long time relationship with a person of the opposite sex.

I noticed this exchange between the two of you and thought i’d just stick my nose in 😉

“Women are human and most want to be recognized as good.
Women are human and most are capable of rationalizing any thing they do into “good”. ”

From a theological perspective it would seem that “wanting to be recognised as good” is actually a problem as human’s are now, since the fall, by nature _not_ good and are actually a good thing perverted.

So desiring to be seen as “good” would seem to be a bad thing as it fails to admit to having a fallen nature.

And how much evil has been done by people who deny humanities falleness and want to pretend that we are really all “basically good people”.

Perhaps you are actually talking about the same thing. Or perhaps not, just a thought.

. I was wondering why it wasn’t just another word for ONS, but obviously they are different as a ONS will go their separate ways at the end but a SNL may not.

True, and also another difference — SNL means by definition that the couple just met. But ONS need not involve people who just met — it could be acquaitances or neighbors or whatever, that maybe have known each other for years, then go for it just once.

So an encounter could be ONS but not SNL. Or SNL but not ONS. Or both. All of the above, however, are indicitave of very low moral character and an absence of self control.

How many people do you see in abusive relationships (men or women) sticking it out (not counting marriages here, that is different) who aren’t having sex?

Probably zero. Without the sexual bond, what’s the incentive to tolerate the abuse?

Because “NAWALT” is dealing with women as a class. If we can do that, and I agree we can, then we as a CLASS can also be accused of culpability. You can’t have a class going one way and not the other. Its illogical.

As to specific women being unrepentant whores and raging feminazis, I refer to the apex fallacy. Women as a class like helping. This is the heart of Athol’s argument on the “First Officer”. If you let them run around willy-nilly they’ll resent you much like you would resent a manager that doesn’t _ever_ get involved. I’m not saying life will ever be grand, we’re all fallen. We’ll be having these arguments for a long time. However, life could be better than it is now.

then we as a CLASS can also be accused of culpability. You can’t have a class going one way and not the other. Its illogical.

You don’t appear to understand NAWALT. In my experience, NAWALT is a standard method that feminists and white-knighting tradcons use to attempt to shut down any criticism of women, either as a group or as individuals.

Example:
“60% of divorces in the US are filed by women”
“NAWALT! So it doesn’t matter! You just hate women, can’t get laid, and have small penis!!!!!!!”

So what you are saying is this: because some people use logical fallacies a lot, all men are guilty of aiding and abetting feminism. Could you explain the logic behind this, please?

As to specific women being unrepentant whores and raging feminazis, I refer to the apex fallacy.

Excuse me once again, you stated women as in all women as in every single one, are helpers. So again I challenge you to find the words that you would whisper into the shell-pink, delicate ears of Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates such that they would be moved to clean up the messes they made, respectively. Of course, if you are too lazy to use a search engine to learn something, then there’s not much point in attempting a discussion.

Women as a class like helping.

Oh, yes, we can see this so clearly in the real world. That’s why all the articles in the mainstream press about “The End of Men” are so mournful, so sad, so lacking in triumphalism, because all women are all about helping. That’s why so many female school teachers in the K-12 system are so incredibly reluctant to push Ritalin into a boy’s mouth. Because they are all about helping. All those women at NOW, they just want to help. You bet.

This is the heart of Athol’s argument on the “First Officer”. If you let them run around willy-nilly they’ll resent you much like you would resent a manager that doesn’t _ever_ get involved. I’m not saying life will ever be grand, we’re all fallen. We’ll be having these arguments for a long time. However, life could be better than it is now.

Like Chris, you are confusing micro with macro. In a one-on-one situation, Game often works (but not always). However for intergroup relations, I am not at all convinced that Game works. But if you have evidence, I’ll look at it.

Many, perhaps most, women will submit to a man. Many will abase themselves for the right man. But women will not feel like submitting to men as a class. Women tend to be concrete and particular thinkers. They will submit to one man, but not to men in the abstract.

“I haven’t even lived with a girl and I am sick of it. After I got out of my longest LTR a few years back, it only lasted about 3 yrs, I was just drained. It felt like my soul had been sucked out or something.

Women aren’t companions these days. They are ruthless competitors at work, at school, and even in our relationships.”

“I’m saying that today, women aren’t single mothers but more like child minders with an attached indentured servant, her ex to get money from, babysitting, and to use as an emotional whipping boy.

There needs to be a different definition for this, it’s not the same as single motherhood when I was a kid and a single mother was truely on her own.

No, today a single mother is better off than a married mother and that’s why the herd is making single babies…..they’re not too bright, but they’re not too stupid either.

@ Trollking

Here here, well said, older men have no idea the monsters young women are today”

that’s the FIRST (and thus most important) thing communicated — as we can see, not only has nothing changed in the intervening millennia, the “voice” of the human “wife” has only gotten louder, more powerful, and collectively organized to the teeth. . . woman has now perfected the use of the coercive power of entire nations to do her will (calling it “equality” and “fairness” and “liberation” and “security” ad nauseum)

to God, the overturning of the foundational male-female hierarchy was the absolutely WORST thing humanity could have done (and now we begin to see why, eh?)

genesis tells the race EXACTLY WHY God cursed woman, man , and earth, and we see the effects of the punishment of woman everywhere around us — her “desire” is not only “for the male” sexually and psychologiclally (esp the desire for marriage) but indeed legally, sociopolitically, etc

in every area of life, she was punished by having a vastly increased desire to be a better male than the male — her desire to rebell against male authority was much heightened by the curse — you want it, you got it

A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle is not only a lie, it’s the willful mass exteriorization of the rebellion of Eve (early woman) and a slap of God’s face (we will not accept our punishment from you, but we will rebel even further, and there’s nothing you can do about it)

the book of Revelation makes clear where all this inevitably leads, yet even the return of Christ and the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom will not alter God’s original curse, b/c the matriarchal rebellion under which we now languish will persist (free will)

however, the rebellion during the Millennium will be much opposed, on a vast scale (compared to current efforts, which are only preparatory)

the antiquity, depth, and popularity of woman’s rebellion will be illustrated by its persistence throughout the Millennium, culminating in a final showdown — only at this point will it be resolved permanently b/c not until then will satan be, ah, resolved permanently

even the presence of God on Earth will not be sufficient to turn the rebels from the selfishness and pathology of this folly!! that is some hairy shit folks, and it’s gonna get hairier

it’s the deepest and most malevolent deception of human history (and pre-history) — and it wont die easy

but when it does, the curse will be lifted and the race, by God’s mercy and love, will go forward even more glorified than its condition in eden

You wrote: “So men have no right to defend themselves against women, is that correct? If she stabs him with a carving knife, then pulls back her arm to stab him again, he should just stand there and take his stabbing like a man, right?”

Yes, they have a right to defend themselves, but is it wise in all circumstances? Please remember you’re talking to a Christian who views “eye for an eye” as necessary, but “turn the other cheek” as better.

If you’re married to an axe murderer, maybe it’s time to move out.

Quoting: “And if while he’s gone, she destroys his property, or calls the police and tells lies to have him arrested, what would you suggest? These are not hypotheticals. These are things that have happened to men I know.”

If they are married, it’s her property too that she’s destroying. If she gets her husband arrested, her life becomes even more unstable. These are the things you want her to realize beforehand.

But if it happens, I can understand anger, and I can understand self-defence. But he should save some of that anger for himself, because he chose her.

Quoting: “Excuse me, that’s what you’re suggesting – that men not be angry about unjust laws, that men not be angry about bad behavior by women, that men just shut up, “man up”, and “lead” by catering to the whims of women. In other words, “lead” by doing what women tell them to do.”

Of course not. Men need to lead by doing what God tells them to do. And I did say that unjust laws should be changed, so work toward that, if you view that as your calling. Get elected, take a stand, etc. But pure anger, even justifiable anger, will not get you elected. You need something more.

Quoting: “Again I ask if you are now, or have ever, been married or in a long time relationship with a person of the opposite sex.”

I would hope that the points I’m trying to make would stand for themselves, but this is an understandable question. Yes, I have been in a LTR with a person of the opposite sex, and I haven’t had the need for a shouting or punching match. Going back a bit farther, my parents’ 40+ years of marriage could probably make the same claim. I only remember one time in all those years where voices even had a hard edge. Maybe that’s why they’re still happily married after 40+ years. And yes, they believe in the submissive wife and loving husband doctrine.

The responses to my comments seem to be making assumptions. Assumptions of points that I am not making.

My point? Women are not the enemy. They may be working for the enemy, but they themselves are not the enemy. Just as men are not the enemy for women, women are not the enemy for men. Yes, each side commits heinous crimes against the other, but that is because of the selfishness of the people, the hardness of people’s hearts, and the lies that people believe, sometimes without even knowing it. The lie is the enemy. The rebellion to God is the enemy.

Men want women, and women want men. In the proper state, they are not enemies. They may be twisted into enemy positions by external spiritual forces and internal selfishness, but our goal should be to return to that proper state where there is reconciliation, where we (both men and women) are not enemies of God’s law nor His Spirit, nor our mates.

In order to achieve such peace, men need to repent, and women need to repent, from our erroneous ways. We need to forgive each other. But if the other side is mocking you, does that help or hinder the act of repentance? If we mock women for their folly, will that hasten their repentance, or will they dig in their heels and point out our folly?

We should speak the truth in love, not in the hope of winning the argument, or getting our just deserts back from feminists, but in the hope of women wanting to change themselves, for peaceful and loving homes. If we change ourselves, and women do not change, then the women who do not change will be left behind, as it should be. But there will be some women who do change, and those should be rewarded with happy homes.

I suppose this sounds like pie in the sky to many readers. But is it any less effective than anger and mockery? If we offend our audience before we get the message across, we’ve already lost the battle, to our own hurt!

And yes, whether we realize it or not, the ultimate audience of the manosphere is women, for they are the jewel we wish to redeem from feminism.

My point? Women are not the enemy. They may be working for the enemy, but they themselves are not the enemy.

Women are just working for “the enemy”? That makes no difference. What you just said sounds like a variant of, “I was just following orders”. That wasn’t accepted as an excuse at Nuremberg, and those of us in the manosphere don’t accept that as an excuse from women.

This is going to be longer than I intended, but I don’t have the time to shorten / tighten it up.

Recently I spent some time with a man who is married, and who had been going through a rough time with his wife. It was more or less the usual thing, not too extreme (no cheating, for example) just endless, grinding, unpleasantness. I mentioned the line about modern women being “short, angry men with boobs” and he laughed — pretty grimly, but he did laugh — for example. Long story short I showed him some sources a while back – usual suspects, Roissy, “gaming my wife”, Athol, etc. and now he tells me now that things are better.
Better for him, better for the children, and his wife seems less impossible to live with. So over the first beer, all was well.

But over the second or third beer he grumbled about it all. He didn’t like Game at all when we started talking it over back a year or so ago. I know why, it goes against everything his traditional style mother and father told him about how to treat women. It goes against everything he’s been told by marriage counselors, including the Churchian one. It goes against everything – and
it works. He was amazed and disgusted the first time he Gamed his wife, because it worked even though he didn’t expect it to. And according to everything he’d been told growing up and as a man, it should have failed rather than succeeded.

Well, ok, he’ll get over that stage in time. So what was really bothering him? His wife’s attitude. He explained it like this, and I’m paraphrasing a whole lot:

“It’s like when I catch a kid getting into the pantry just before supper, at the cookie jar. I tell ’em they know better than to do that, and they say ‘Are you mad? I’ll be good!’. Well, they aren’t sorry about trying to steal cookies. They’re sorry they got caught. They aren’t promising to be good because they want to, they’re promising to be good to try to get out of a punishment. And then maybe they’ll say something like ‘Don’t you trust me?” but I know how to answer that one now – trust is earned. You have to earn my trust by doing right, not by just asking for it. So get out of the pantry and the kitchen, right now. I don’t have time to watch you so you stay out of the cookies, either.”

“And that’s how it is with the wife. Kind of like ‘Oh, did I piss you off? Oh, ok. I’ll be good’. It’s not any kind of repentance. It’s not like she’s really sad, because she sees how she did wrong, and truly doesn’t want to do those things to me and the kids anymore, either. I don’t know if she really wants to do right because it’s the right thing, or if she just wants to get on my good side me by doing some things I want. Same problem. Can I trust her to do right by me because she wants to do right – even when I’m on my Game – or is it just that she’ll do right as long as I am watching? See what I mean?”.

So long conversation short, he’s kind of worried that he’s going to have to keep on gaming his wife, sometimes pretty hard, in order to have some peace, and quiet, and a little more regular sex. He’s afraid that any slip in his Game will put him back to square one and he doesn’t want that. Now, I’m pretty sure that as his inner game strengthens, he will find it easier to maintain frame. So I don’t think he needs to worry on that score. But he does have a valid point: if his wife really doesn’t understand how she’s hurt the family and the marriage all women are supposedly so, so concerned about, how permanent are the changes in her behavior? How much should he trust her? I don’t have an answer for that because I don’ t know her well enough to have any real opinion. The point is, he’s not sure. And it frets at him.

I believe this ties right in to Ms. Duffy’s article – and I am sure it is Ms Duffy, too. The gist of the article is simply this: “Oh, some men are angry. Something called ‘feminism’ bothers them. Feminism is abortion and promiscuity, so I’m not one of those. Men shouldn’t be angry. We should all get along”.

In other words, “Oh! Are you mad? I’ll be good!”. No remorse. No admission of wrong. No contrition. No introspection. And so it is fair to ask how long such an attitude or behavior change will last.

This brings me to my second point, the issue of trust. My friend has a hard time trusting his wife because she betrayed him in the past, in some ways, and he’s not sure how deep the recent changes go. I’m certain he’s not the only man in that condition, at the personal or micro level. At the macro level, there are a number of men who have every reason to not trust women – not as individuals, nor as a group. I don’t have to go into the reasons, we all know them (or should, Chris & GKChesterton)).

So the men who are righteously angry may not respond too well when social conservatives, traditional conservatives, etc. start telling them to just trust women. Just trust them, no need for women to have to prove themselves. Women just want to be “helpers”, just trust them blindly. Every woman should be trusted. Any woman, any woman at all, is worthy of a man’s trust. That’s the other part of Ms. Duffy’s article, by the way.

So these are the real issues in this article and some responses, it seems to me. Maybe it is all one issue.

1. “Oh, are you angry? I’ll be good! Trust me!” is not an argument, it’s not a chain of logic, it’s something a child would say when caught breaking a rule. But I expect to see more of this from women in the days and years to come. Women should not count on this working, not at all.

Why?

2. Men’s trust in women has been taken for granted, and badly mangled, for years and years. Decades, in fact. It is far too late for anyone to just tell men to blindly trust all women, or any women at all. Social conservatives, traditional conservatives, etc. should make a note of this.

The one useful part of this exercise is that one clueless Churchian feminist has become a bit uneasy about men’s anger. That’s good. We should see more of this, much more, if any progress towards a sane society is to be made.

“My general observation is that if you make a two-axis chart, which measures ‘prosperity’ on one axis, and ‘number of years of democracy’ on the other….

Countries high on both counts (US, UK, Canada) would have the most misandry.
Countries mature in democracy but not yet prosperous (India) would have examples of misandry interspersed with gender normative customs.
Countries that are prosperous but not long in democracy (Spain, Italy, South Korea, etc.) would also be like this.
And countries with neither would be gender normative.”

Very interesting theory. I’ve been reflecting on it. Applying your paradigm on Southeast Asia we could then say:

1.) Cambodia is still rather unspoiled by misandry because it is a.) not prosperous and b.) has been a democracy only for a short time, and retains a fragile hold on democracy at best.

2.) Thailand is likewise unspoiled because firstly, while it may be prosperous in regional comparison, it is still rather poor compared to the West. It also lacks a solid welfare state. Secondly Thailand’s “democracy” is a joke. Since WWII a myriad of coup d’etats have occurred every few years (the last in 2007 iirc).

3.) Vietnam, Myanmar and Laos are both poor and dictatorships. Essentially, they remain – for now – relatively robust patriarchies.

Anyways, I would like to suggest an expansion of your paradigm: as someone else has already pointed out (in an earlier comment) urbanization and the formation of welfare states are also vital ingredients in the formation of misandry. I believe this is so because by and large only in large conglomerates like cities women can have the anonymity required to ride on the cock carousel, emancipate themselves from family ties and “empower” themselves etc. The SATC lifestyle only works in cities. So maybe urbanization explains Japanese misandry and consequently ensuing Japanese herbivorism? I’ve had some dealings with Japanese women. On the surface they behave more feminine than western women. But I believe the have been similarily pampered and infected by the ‘Princess Entitlement Syndrom’ and thus possess astronomical expectations.

Think western women *without* the masculinization but *with* the usual narcissism.

That was a beautiful, honest comment. I think this is the kind of perspective women need to understand. Do you have hope that they _can_ understand it? I do. At least for some women.

I believe that this is the same attitude that men have toward God, though. Are we really repentant for the wrong we have done? Or do we just hope to escape the consequences? Sometimes I think that from God’s perspective, men look an awful lot like women do to men.

In all likelihood, the image of women as ‘helpers’ is nothing but traditionalist propaganda designed to lure young men into marriage. Women aren’t ‘helpers’, as they are fundamentally self-serving creatures. The female behaviors normally described as ‘helping’ are nothing more than conscious and subconscious acts of manipulation designed to extract more resources from the father of her children.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, obviously it’s difficult to say. The male birth control pill could be a game changer, but we’ve discussed that already numerous times. Paternity testing is another recent innovation that benefits men at the expense of women. It doesn’t ensure a legal right to abandon children that aren’t biologically yours to begin with, but what matters is that the reliable and cheap technology is there. I remember an article posted on some Manosphere blog years ago about billions of dollars of child support being uncollected in various US states due to the fathers having run off to somewhere or dropping from the radar of law enforcement in some other way. I can’t blame them. The simple fact is that society cannot and probably should not force people, men or women, to become parents against their will. Society largely takes this for granted when it comes to women but not so much when it comes to men, for reasons that probably don’t need explanation on this blog (gynonormativity etc). I could also mention VR porn and sexbots as examples of technologies that are pro-male due to them eroding the female ability to extract resources from beta males through sexual manipulation.

But none of this means, of course, that the status quo isn’t durable. One question I thought about is how women would respond to a massive economic crisis and social disintegration. Would they return to their old strategy of demanding commitment in exchange for sex, or would they simply whine, bitch and moan, dumpster-dive, resort to prostitution and flock to alpha thugs? I think the latter is more likely. After all, did Russian women become more traditionalist-minded after 1991? Or Western women after 1918? Hardly.

It’s entirely possible that the human race has some fundamentally dysgenic and defective trait which we haven’t identified yet, and feminism is merely one of its symptoms. I’m not talking about ’The Fall’ or some other religious fantasy. For some reason, human evolution took such a turn that we devised the means of our own destruction – not only nuclear weapons, but contraception as well. The human race has only existed for 2 million years and its majority is already practising voluntary self-extinction through birth control (look at fertility statistics by country). This process is unlikely to be reversed and will probably affect more and more cultures. In fact, new and even more effective means of birth control may be invented. Sharks have existed for hundreds of millions of years on this planet. They may turn out to be a design vastly superior to man.

I suggest he read ‘Sex and Character’ by the Austrian Jewish philosopher Otto Weininger. It explains that women fundamentally lack any inherent concept of morality – according to the dictionary definition of the term, they’re ‘amoral’. They aren’t imbued with any abstract sense of justice. This explains why women always flock to criminals, thugs, murderers and other men who reject morality. The creature with no morality will always gravitate to the one who explicitly rejects it. It’s not that men are morally superior, it’s that they have an innate sense of morality to begin with whereas women don’t.

“In all likelihood, the image of women as ‘helpers’ is nothing but traditionalist propaganda designed to lure young men into marriage. Women aren’t ‘helpers’, as they are fundamentally self-serving creatures.”

Well you could put nearly all altruism down to some sort of selfish urges ultimately, couldn’t you? I think you’re too accustomed to modern women, especially the kind these days that can’t even find time to properly care for their children. There are lots of women in the world who like to be helpful, who like to be helpmates. Now whether that is ultimately selfish or not is a philosophical question, not a practical question. In practical terms, women have come to see being helpful as being subservient to men. It’s hard for a lot of people to understand just how much things have changed. If you didn’t have a traditional mother raised in a truly traditional family, or if you’ve never talked to many Muslim women living in Muslim countries, you have skewed view of women and the possible personalities they can have. The harpees are just all too numerous these days.

Most of the women in my family are actually good helpers. Women can be very generous and, frankly, servile in the right circumstances. I have see this in my own life. Even my wife will put a meal in front of me very dutifully. I don’t know what the secret is. I suspect it may be mothers normally teaching daughters to look after men. But not any more in some places, obviously.

Elite men did collude with feminism. Why? They had no principled basis not to. They had accepted a set of ideas of which feminism was a logical outcome. It was only a matter of time – unless they were willing to rethink those principles. But they have never done that.

Women in traditional cultures are helpers because that’s what they are trained to do from birth. It’s the only thing they’ve ever known, what their mothers and grandmothers have ever known for that matter. Not to mention that the alternative was spinsterhood in endless poverty. Cavewomen were helpers because the alternative was starving to death or getting eaten by the sabre-tooth tiger due to lack of male protection and support. It’s probably no coincidende that women started abandoning the helper role in droves once the circumstances allowed it.

@Mark Richardson 5:53 am

It was in their political interest to do so. They further consolidated their stranglehold on society and cemented their power by legally and economically disempowering the average man and turning average women into a reliable voting bloc by giving them goodies like Marriage 2.0, affirmative action, the Bradley Amendment, VAWA and so on. Simple as that.

It’d be utterly delusional to believe that women lack meaningful influence on society just because they are physically weaker and less rational than men. They are actually very good at manipulating men, even the powerful ones, for their own ends, because most men are dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to women.

Dont be fooled by women as helpers. Its a complicated melange of behaviors that still have her running the show, and more able to claim victimhood.
My in laws, perfect example, mid 70’s and seemingly very traditional Baptist Texas small town. she works tirelessly w/ arthritis fingers and a bad knee, never sits, serves serves serves. But once I took the red pill I noticed some things.

If there is anyone in hearing range, she makes little groaning noises, like straining with effort, Ive stood around a corner to see if, when alone, she does this. She doesnt. Let me say I love these people too, better in laws you cannot have. Im just explaining the dynamic of the helpful woman.

She is definitely helpful and seemingly servile in that. But she runs EVERYTHING. The power, be it home, money, time, church, whatever rests with her final rendering. Ive awakened to this and now see it in vast majority of so called helpful women. especially in her generation. heck younger ones largely have no skills with which to be helpful even if they wanted to.

An older couple approached the pastor saying they heard his message on Ephesians ordered marriage and wanted to counsel on it. Every question the pastor asked of wither of them, the woman answered and the man stood there. Finally the pastor said, not unkindly, well if you want to do that start by allowing him to answer some questions.

I was taught that women can rise above the curse, such that they feel no pain in labor. But these are the righteous.

@TFH

I would go much further than you, I would also prohibit them from having property rights past that of inheritance. I would also get rid of all affirmative action laws in regards to women, If they are “just as good” then they dont need the laws, the marketplace will see to it, if they are a liability, then they should definitely not be there. In general, a company which wants a woman free environment should be encouraged, as this encourages two parent households.

Welfare, at least government sponsored, would be right out, as would ALL child support for out of wedlock births. However, on the flip side fathers of out of wed lock would have no rights in addition to no responsibility.

Those are the simplist changes, the families courts would be far harder as judges are in general utterly debased and corrupt. This is also why I am opposed to the death penalty, the judiciary and prosecutorial offices are too corrupt to be trusted with a human life. The best we could do for family court is to scrap it entirely. All marriages must be contract driven. That is base them on prenups that specify what the divisions will be in the event of divorce, children etc. No exceptions whatsoever. The current model of marriage simply cannot be reformed as there is too much vested interest in the corruption of it.

When you get down to it, feminism is a subsidised beast. Without the active social manipulation by government it would die far faster than we would imagine.

How many men here at least entertain these ideas? If not, why not? Putting aside your own suffering and willingness to die without children, does it not hurt your souls to see so many of your brothers, especially your younger brothers being condemned to the Hell of feminism?

My conclusion at the end of it all is that women are children, yes this also includes “good women”. They cannot be trusted with power, because they cannot control it. Does that make them evil? No more than it makes a 10 year old boy evil if he fails to properly perform as a CEO. This is not about intelligence, this is about the psyche. Women do not, and will never have the ability to truly be trsuted in any position of power over men, in some way or another they will cause destruction when given it.

The male should show leadership and not push or strike back during an argument. The male is stronger and should behave with that in mind. Even shouting is unnecessary. It shows he has lost control of his own emotions. He should demonstrate how to handle disagreement properly, by living it out. If the female rants and raves and cannot be reasoned with, he can always leave and tell her that he’ll talk about this when she is in a rational state of mind.

And later, in response to Anon Reader:

I would hope that the points I’m trying to make would stand for themselves, but this is an understandable question. Yes, I have been in a LTR with a person of the opposite sex, and I haven’t had the need for a shouting or punching match. Going back a bit farther, my parents’ 40+ years of marriage could probably make the same claim. I only remember one time in all those years where voices even had a hard edge. Maybe that’s why they’re still happily married after 40+ years. And yes, they believe in the submissive wife and loving husband doctrine.

The breeziness with which you dismiss the legal and social minefield married men face today tells me that you either have much to teach, or much to learn. So far I’m not seeing a convincing case for the former. You offer one example of a married couple where feminism caused no strife. I would ask you to do just a bit better. If this is all so obvious and easy for Christian men, please show me one Christian congregation where this is the norm. Show me a church which actually practices the cornerstone of Christian sexual morality, marriage. I shouldn’t have to explain (but I always do) that by marriage I don’t mean a church and state sanctioned stepping stone on the path of serial monogamy. Show me a congregation with a measured and very low divorce rate. I have a standing offer to hold such a congregation up for the world to acknowledge. Please, if you know of one, don’t keep your knowledge secret. Young men are starving for a place of biblical wisdom, and together perhaps we can point them to one.

Beyond that, if you really know as much as you claim you do about how to solve the fundamental problems men face today, you are being selfish by not sharing your vast wisdom with the world. Millions of young men are struggling greatly with how to overcome the obstacles of a legally and socially poisoned marriage 2.0. You have the power to teach men to navigate these obstacles so deftly that the risks are so small as to be dismissed (by you). Let me know when you write your book, or get your blog up explaining how easy all of this is using your immense wisdom. I’ll gladly point my readers in your direction, even if I remain unconvinced of your ability to do the things you think you can.

I suppose this sounds like pie in the sky to many readers. But is it any less effective than anger and mockery? If we offend our audience before we get the message across, we’ve already lost the battle, to our own hurt!

And yes, whether we realize it or not, the ultimate audience of the manosphere is women, for they are the jewel we wish to redeem from feminism.
—————————————————————————————-

Chris

I dont know where to even start, because Ive started this dynamic so many times with so many men who say the same things you are saying. I am well acquainted with your views because I held them, closely, dear, until 7 years ago more/less. Most men need a transformational experience to peel the scales off the eyes on this topic, because its no coincidence (and somehow even causal) that your views are as comfortable as nestling a woman’s bosom.
The details of my experience are not important, know this though, I’m still married to the same woman for 22 years and 4 kids, so I am not embittered by divorce, which is a cheap and easy charge with which to dismiss guys like some here.
The facts are that things are way out of balance, and men are being held accountable for all relational woes in the church community. Scripture is twisted, rationale made, rhetorical tools perfected, conventional wisdom laid down, and mens better angels appealed to all to see to it that the current church zeitgeist on this persists, because it is a comfy chair that makes momma happy, sorta.
Church moves in tandem with society, surely you agree, and you’d also agree that is unfortunate I suppose. Cultural encroachment on church is widely and popularly decried. Since culture is unarguably moved towards feminism, it stands to reason so has the church, so more some less. But feminism offers insidious cover for feminism in church. Churchy gals can hide behind bull dykes and say WE AINT LIKE THAT we are traditional house dress wearin home schoolin wives. Men look around and buy that hook and line.
So when does it rear up? Simple….accountability. there is none for women, literally NONE in the church, and hence in the Christian marriage presently. I may be on my own with this but I submit its been that way for 100 years at least. I say that because even the older couples, like your parents, are female run households. You have the veneer of a helpful women who busies herself serving, taking care of hearth and home. You also have a dynamic where behind the scenes that same meek wife runs everything. And it looks so sweet and traditional no one is willing to admit whats really happening. That wife at least is not acting out on her lack of accountability because she loves her husband and respects him even though she runs the roost. She hasnt taken the scripture twisting to eliminate accountability.
But the younger ones have, and they are joining evangelical churches in droves because the church is a power mechanism whereby the women has her personal Jesus who will back her decisions, even to divorce because she is unhappy. He allows her to lay divorce trip wires because she is able to establish empathy with her personal Jesus and convince him to change His nature.
I could go on….bottom line is whether they are the enemy or not is unimprtant, because things are so out of balance that to return balance necessarily means to take things away from women in terms of perceived relative morality. They have to be told, bluntly, they have proclivity for sin that is unique to their gender, just like men do, and they have to be shown that it is them and their choices causing by far most divorces today. They are independent operators, they make their own choices, they must be responsible for them. Holding them so will be very very painful for them. In fact if suddenly the church returned to balance and men got behind it the divorce rate among Christians would skyrocket as women threw fits and left in droves. Dust settles and there are half as many people in the pews, because women realize suddenly the church is not their tool, and God is not their personal Jesus.

More, you do no one any good with broad pronouncements that “its not women, its the enemy and if we can just return to God and sin less and etc etc blah blah…..this is a true statement lacking any utility. Its a cop out, a pandering observation. Heck we can act like we are solving all the worlds problems by saying that. And it would be true.
But divorce is not a victimless crime. Men are left in pools of mucus from weeping abd begging, kids are left living out of roller bags trying to see dad on occasion, all because of pandering to women.

How about this as a sermon….”women its time you step up”

Let that idea marinate, picture it in the bulletin. You can’t can you? There you have your answer.

“If this is all so obvious and easy for Christian men, please show me one Christian congregation where this [feminism causing no strife] is the norm. Show me a church which actually practices the cornerstone of Christian sexual morality, marriage. *** Show me a congregation with a measured and very low divorce rate.”

That would require not only men leading, but also its complement: wifely submission. She must agree to submit. She must submit willingly and voluntarily to her husband. She must assume not only the rights and privileges of a wife, but cheerfully accept and discharge wifely obligations to her husband. Chief among those obligations is regular and satisfying sex at reasonable intervals. If she can’t feel the attraction in her mind and heart, she needs to learn to fake it, just as men whose enthusiasm for their jobs ebbs and flows must still do those jobs.

I think most American men would be shocked to open their eyes and see what is really going on in America as well. With this in mind, I’m very skeptical that Australia is truly different.

It’s a little behind North America in these things because the Australian male image, and “mate culture” hasn’t been beaten down as thoroughly as in the US — it still survives to some degree there, whereas in the US it’s mush spottier. I think it has, in part, to do with the elite culture creators in the US and their own predilictions, which are quite anti-masculine to say the least — Australia is less elitist both historically and currently and therefore masculinity hasn’t been under quite the same kind of “attack from within”, to the same degree, as we have experienced in North America. Having said that, based on my own observations from a few trips there to visit family, it’s really a difference of degree … it’s like Australia is 2 or so decades behind North America in these areas, so think America in the late 80s early 90s.

I may be on my own with this but I submit its been that way for 100 years at least. I say that because even the older couples, like your parents, are female run households.

I would agree that this was fairly common in the pre-cultural revolution era as well. I think it comes from the Victorian era, where women were well and truly pedestalized, socially and religiously, as being more virtuous than men. Certainly not a Christian idea, at its base — St. Paul would say otherwise, I think. But nevertheless it is our cultural inheritance from the 19th Century and it has bled into everything between men and women in Anglo cultures in particular. In my parents generation (now in their 80s, so people who were in their formative years during WWII), the female-run household is very common — some of them are the meek-behind-the-scenes type and some are the more “in-your-face” type, but nevertheless it’s quite common and was also quite common to see when I was growing up. What changed was not that women were bossing their husbands around. That, I agree, was not new. What changed was the law that permitted women to ditch these guys just because they wanted to and still get their financial support. That last bit was new, and switched quite a few of these situations into divorces (there was a total and utter boom in divorces in the ten years after no fault was introduced, as women dumped their unsatisfactory husbands in droves). That persists until the present, really. Bossy wives are not new. Bossy wives being able to take the money and run “just because”, was very new, and that is what has changed, really.

Yes agreed, add to the mix the disposable husband with incentive, and you have enforcement of female as boss. There exists no quarter for the married man to not be subject to the woman. And even those few not subject to the women are so at her pleasure, hence, are the really not subject to her

“Bossy wives are not new. Bossy wives being able to take the money and run “just because”, was very new, and that is what has changed, really.”

This is absolutely right, but I’m pretty sure this pre-dates the Victorian era. Tales and anecodotes about henpecked husbands can be found in a great many cultures going back centuries. Shakespeare, the Greek myths and the Bible all have examples of shrewish and bossy wives. Women have always exercised a fair degree of power at home and over their husbands.

But yes, what’s new is letting them take the money, move out and hop on new cock.

INS reports a divorce rate of 19% for men married to women from certain countries. So, marry a Greek Orthodox woman immigrant from Vietnam, and we can multiply 14% x 19% and get an imputed divorce rate of 2.6%

The example was given in response to Anonymous Reader, as I recall. I don’t intend to argue by number of examples. The examples of success are so few, in both churches and families, that worldly men would probably see it as a reason to give up hope entirely. Indeed, without God, we might as well give up hope.

I hope that nothing I’ve said dismisses the legal and social minefield that married men face today. The risks are real and the hurt is real and the lies are thick on the ground. But this minefield can be a distraction to what I think is a better way.

If a man’s home is rightly ordered under God, with God both ruling and energizing the home and the relationship and the hearts, then the laws that the world passes are of no consequence to that particular man, for God is his king, not man.

It won’t matter if the world gives his wife the power to kill him, for his godly wife would laugh such laws to scorn. Yes, I believe God is entirely able to heal a family this completely.

Obviously, this ideal is not possible without God. And for the world who must suffer under unjust laws, they are truly a burden and a grief, and this injustice helps to wreck families. I want to see such laws changed as well as you do.

But I don’t have the power to change such laws personally. Yet the power to submit to God is exactly what He offers everyone willing to humble themselves before Him. And that gives me more hope of real change in my own life than any social change I might be able to muster on the streets in protest, or on a blog in protest.

I am not trying to be critical of your efforts in disseminating the truth here on your blog. Indeed, you have opened my eyes to things, and I thank you for that. But I believe that women are not the enemy, and the goal is to seek God and follow His logic, which flies in the face of the world’s way of thinking. The world’s way of thinking helps to incite anger and strife, and I don’t want to see that take hold here on your blog. Especially if it would turn away women who need to hear the truth in love as much as men do.

The spiritual solution will beat the physical solution every time, often in ways that sidestep the physical problem completely. (Sometimes the spiritual solution brings new problems, or rather opportunities, such as persecution, but that’s a different topic.) We can argue all we want over the physical solutions that are needed, but physical solutions take time and politics to implement. The spiritual solution can start being implemented by every reader, man or woman, right now, starting in their own hearts.

As for writing a book, I dare not, at this point. I am still too sinful, and fall prey to my own selfishness too often. I point to the Bible, and more importantly, I point to Jesus Christ. But we have to actually believe what He says. Not what the church says He says.

You say that young men are starving for a place of biblical wisdom, and I agree. I am starving too. I currently know of no church in my area that preaches the truth according to scripture. But that is also part of the problem. We have a tendency to seek out other men to tell us what God says, instead of going straight to God ourselves for the truth, and believing what we hear. It’s a lonely, quiet path, patiently waiting on God for answers, but it’s better than the fast food lies we get in so many other places.

And finally, I want to apologise to you personally for using your wife’s comments as an example in my earlier post. That was too personal and I should have kept my arguments generic. I hope you can forgive me.

How do you feel about other wrongs with victims? Murder….active or passive approach? Abortion? Active or passive?
See, I see this all the time, the church gone apoplectic about abortion and gay marriage (yea yea hate the sin not the sinner etc etc) but on divorce….”submit to God and let Him sort it”

Sorry, divorce is not a victimless act. Its the number one fallout from evangelical feminism, and its why we have to ACT

You wrote: “I say that because even the older couples, like your parents, are female run households. You have the veneer of a helpful women who busies herself serving, taking care of hearth and home. You also have a dynamic where behind the scenes that same meek wife runs everything.”

Well, I know there are households like that, but I need to also say that my own mother has given me advice that someday I will need to tell my wife what to do and how to do it and the order to do it in, in order to maintain peace in the home. She gave me an example from her own relationship.

But as to your general theme, yes, modern women do tend to want to have their own way, and will gladly tell you. I think they chafe at the idea of authority. (But even men chafe at authority, so it’s hard to blame them.) This is unfortunate, and I don’t believe it is a godly attitude. Such women are, most likely, not ready to marry yet, and the men need to see it that way.

When a woman is ready to marry, and has found a godly man, she will also be ready to soberly take the vow to obey her husband, and mean it. She will do this not so much for her husband’s sake, but for God. Living in obedience to her husband shows faith in God, and it glorifies Him.

No, you don’t hear this in sermons much. But this is how a woman “steps up.”

A godly husband “steps up” by realizing that even if his wife (who has already promised to obey) fails to obey, his duty is to continue to love her, just like he promised. And he will do all he can to guide her back to obedience under God. This may mean he has to fix issues in himself as well. But love “rejoices with the truth” and so that doesn’t mean to sweep honest problems under the carpet, whether those problems stem from the husband or the wife.

You say that young men are starving for a place of biblical wisdom, and I agree. I am starving too. I currently know of no church in my area that preaches the truth according to scripture. But that is also part of the problem. We have a tendency to seek out other men to tell us what God says, instead of going straight to God ourselves for the truth, and believing what we hear. It’s a lonely, quiet path, patiently waiting on God for answers, but it’s better than the fast food lies we get in so many other places.

I think you miss the profound significance of the fact that you can’t name a congregation which hasn’t abandoned Christian sexual morality. If a congregation can’t get its thinking straight on this, how is one to trust them on anything else of consequence? I’m not saying that this changes what the bible says, but there is a massive amount of denial amongst Christians right now as to the true state of Christianity. What you are effectively saying is one who wishes to learn can’t hope to find a suitable teacher, yet you breezily suggest all one needs to do is learn and their problems will be solved.

As for your objection to the anger expressed on the issue of divorce and rampant single motherhood, have you not seen what this is doing to innocent children? If that doesn’t bring out righteous indignation and outrage, I can’t imagine what would.

I agree with everything you’re saying. But it requires not only the man to lead, it requires the woman to submit. It requires the woman to submit not only to God, but also to her husband as well. It requires the woman to trust her husband. It requires to, yes, OBEY her husband oftentimes.

And 50 years ago, we had institutions — laws, governmental apparatuses, churches, schools, law enforcement entities — which were ordered according to a Judeo-Christian worldview, which enforced those tenets. And there were real economic and social consequences. A woman before 1960 who cheats on her husband? She gets a pittance in the property distribution, no alimony, and the clothes on her back. The kids, the house and the marital property go to the husband. Unless she remarries, she will have to work to support herself. A high school girl who gets knocked up circa 1955? She will “go away” for a time to have the child. The child will either be put up for a closed adoption; or she and the father will marry and make the best of it. All this will happen with the full support of the father’s family as well as the community, the schools, and the churches. If she does not marry, she will carry the “slut” label, and she’ll face almost certain spinsterhood.

We don’t have that anymore. Now, nothing constrains a woman other than her own sense of morality. There are no economic consequences. There is no societal reprisal. More to the point, the churches have completely abrogated their moral authority in this regard and have allowed feminism to coopt them. That’s why it’s a minefield.

Suz:
“She will do this not so much for her husband’s sake, but for God.”

“Sure she will. When she feels like it. When she doesn’t feel like it, she’ll have one excuse or another, provided by the church and her own personal Jesus.”

Oh, yes, I think you get it.

“My husband and I weren’t Christians when we married. Now we are. I can see now that he was not The One God intended for me. I know this because [God laid it on my heart] [God revealed this to my anointed pastor] [I’m not attracted to my husband] [I don’t have anything in common with my husband] [I don’t orgasm during sex]. So God has released me from my marriage and freed me to find The One.”

“I’m a Christian and my husband isn’t. So because he’s not submitted to God, I don’t have to submit to him.”

“I don’t have to submit to you because you’re not submitted to God! Pastor ___ said so!”

“I don’t have to submit to you because you’re in sin by [looking at porn] [eating too much] [drinking too much] [not going to church enough] [not having found a job] [not leading around here] [not leading me in prayer] [not leading devotionals enough]!”

“My husband and I weren’t Christians when we married. Now we are. I can see now that he was not The One God intended for me. I know this because
–I’m not haaaappy
–I’ve never been haaaappy
–we can’t get pregnant
–I still have feelings for my first boyfriend, Harley McBadboy
–it was revealed to me in prayer that my husband is not The One
–his penis is too big
–his penis is too small
–he’s too skinny
–he’s too fat

So God has released me from my marriage and freed me to find The One.”

So when Islam takes us back to the 8th century, the human race will survive. Of course this will happen after millions and more likely billions die from the lack of scientific advancement as nature catches up to and overtakes what we have done.

A man would be better off with an atheist. Those churchian women with their Christianese are creepy. I mean that sincerely; they give me a severe case of the willies. Add to that the “reclaimed slut” element and you get an insufferable, self-righteous “daughter of the Lord” who will only submit to you once she’s decided you’re as good as Jesus (i.e. never).

If you’re lucky, she might “grow in the Lord” and become a woman who thinks submission means sometimes cooking you fresh potatoes (even though it’s more bother than the kind that come in a box – she’s such a martyr!) if you ask nice enough.

Dalrock says:
February 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“As for your objection to the anger expressed on the issue of divorce and rampant single motherhood, have you not seen what this is doing to innocent children? If that doesn’t bring out righteous indignation and outrage, I can’t imagine what would.”

Obviously Chris is a cold hearted and despicable character to not care about child.

“My general observation is that if you make a two-axis chart, which measures ‘prosperity’ on one axis, and ‘number of years of democracy’ on the other….

Countries high on both counts (US, UK, Canada) would have the most misandry.
Countries mature in democracy but not yet prosperous (India) would have examples of misandry interspersed with gender normative customs.
Countries that are prosperous but not long in democracy (Spain, Italy, South Korea, etc.) would also be like this.
And countries with neither would be gender normative.”

And you know what? Feminists will look at that conclude that female empowerment results in prosperity and democracy, rather than the other way around. How do I know this? They already do. Listen to Hillary talk about the need to educate women in failed states so that they will produce prosperous stable societies (rather than reaching the obvious conclusion from history that prosperous stable societies have the luxury of educating women).

Along the same lines as Deti’s list, here is one I read on a Catholic forum over a year ago. The woman was fantasizing about divorcing her husband because he wanted her to help with the family business:

God picked this husband for me, but I don’t know why.

The whole thread is pretty amazing, but this other bit stood out as well:

I am angry at the losses I have sufferered. I would have loved to have had more children but my ability to have them was ended at age 40 when I went into early menopause.

Only 20+ years of fertility, what a cruel surprise.

I first encountered this particular poster on the forum when she was (ironically enough) taking issue with my post “Women are the ones who want to avoid commitment”. They have since deleted the thread, but she claimed that my advice to men not to assume they had commitment just because a woman had sex with them was unchristian. I asked her to point this out in scripture, but she never did.

@Chris
“When a woman is ready to marry, and has found a godly man, she will also be ready to soberly take the vow to obey her husband, and mean it. She will do this not so much for her husband’s sake, but for God. Living in obedience to her husband shows faith in God, and it glorifies Him.”
When a woman is ready to marry, and wear the white dress, she better not have been fornicating.
As to the man having to be Godly to marry her, read 1 Corinthians 7:13, which is in the Bible.

“she will also be ready to soberly take the vow to obey her husband, and mean it. She will do this not so much for her husband’s sake, but for God.”
What was Mary Winkler doing?

“Living in obedience to her husband shows faith in God, and it glorifies Him.”
So the husband is obeyed in sufferance. Heck, if it even gets there, I’d call it a miracle.
Seems like respect is out of the equation.

I believe that in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is the largest Orthodox body in the US, has a divorce rate of 14%

Yeah, I wonder though if that is just the number of “ecclesiastical divorces” that the GOA is tracking. My guess is that secular(ish) GOs have a higher divorce rate than 14%, but probably don’t bother going through the ecclesiastical divorce process. After all, they probably only show up at Pascha, and Fr. Stavros won’t withhold the chalice from them, because they’re Greek.

I don’t know. Bossy wives are more frequent in English-speaking countries. It seem a Victorian phenomenon to me.

I think dragnet is right that there have been stories of bossy wives in all cultures. I do think that there is something specific about Victorianism, though, that gave rise to a particularly common brand of this, which probably either walked hand in hand with feminism, or somehow greatly facilitated its growth in the Anglo countries (which basically were the epicenter of modern feminism).

HollenhundI suggest he read ‘Sex and Character’ by the Austrian Jewish philosopher Otto Weininger. It explains that women fundamentally lack any inherent concept of morality – according to the dictionary definition of the term, they’re ‘amoral’.

Ned Flannders – “When a woman is ready to marry, and has found a godly man, she will also be ready to soberly take the vow to obey her husband, and mean it. She will do this not so much for her husband’s sake, but for God. Living in obedience to her husband shows faith in God, and it glorifies Him.”

Are you being completely serious in that statement? You do realize that the rest of us live in REALITY? The idealize situation you suggest is increasingly rare, as most young women, including those who self-identify as devout Christians, have little use for God’s design [I noticed that several have noted the much-preferred “Personal Jesus” model for the New and Improved Christian Churchianity].

I’m afraid this will seem mean and inconsiderate of your feelings, but, upon reading your rather polyannish comment, what popped into my mind where mostly mocking and snide questions about you and your world view?

Without going into the really mean-spirited ones, like ones about the life-style of living under rocks, please indulge me the amusement of asking you a couple of them:

So, how has the weather been up there in Stepford (the far superior ’72 version)?

I thought you Amish were forbidden from using computers and accessing the internet?

Anonymous Reader, in response to GKChesterton’s assertion that ”Women are human and most want to be recognized as good” – ”Women are human and most are capable of rationalizing any thing they do into “good”. “

Exactly!

I am reminded of a married women who commented briefly on Athol Kay’s MMSL site sometime back, who, although she had a blog detailing her multiple and frequent infidelities, still insisted that she was a “good person” – even pointing out her faithful church attendance as evidence on her behalf.

Yes, women certainly do wish to be considered “good”.

Unfortunately, in this era of (Female) Entitlement, this is more likely to require the continuous redefining of “good” so as to match with an individual woman’s personal choices in life, that it is to be based on something so antiquated, inflexible, patriarchal, controlling, dis-empowering, and just down-right mean-spirited as God’s Holy Word.

Yes, I was being serious, although I may have over-used the word “godly.” That’s the goal, but not everyone reaches that before they marry.

I’m basing this on 1 Peter 3, for those following along at home. To be a godly wife of an ungodly husband requires some serious faith, in my opinion, but that’s what scripture calls for. Regardless of what some churches say.

It’s better to have a godly husband, of course, or at least one that seeks to be godly.

I thought you Amish were forbidden from using computers and accessing the internet?

I laughed out loud at that one. But you’re not too far from the mark. Some of my semi-distant ancestors were Mennonite. But I don’t hold all their views.

For the record, I got here from the Spearhead, as I recall, and I got to the Spearhead after happening to run across a random video on the net that mentioned a movement called “Men Going Their Own Way.”

I don’t plan on regularly being as verbose as I have been in this thread. The topic in the linked article touched on anger and bitterness, and so I thought it was appropriate to speak up at this juncture.

I would say that the problem is not the church but Christianity itself. After all the central theme of Christianity is the engaged virgin (Mary) fucking with the alpha-male over all (the Holy Spirit) and getting a child by him (Jesus). The cuckolded man (Joseph) is forced by the well-fare state (God) to support the woman and her child.

Feminism is nothing but Christianity gone wild and we have come to a point in which the only way forward for Western society is to abandon Christianity.

I wouldn’t bet on Islam actually changing anything. Muslim countries are also deeply affected by collapsing birthrates, feminization and the erosion of traditional sexual norms. We see the same process there as in the West.

”Women are human and most are capable of rationalizing any thing they do into “good”.

Not only are women “capable” of it (as are men) we are more likely to do it, more often. We think, “Fluctuating hormones! Yikes!” and we envision psycho-bitch mood swings, but those are only the most obvious extremes of a constant, subtle phenomenon. On a fundamental level, every decision is an emotional one, even the most rational. Women’s emotions are far less stable than men’s. Every day. Our smallest priorities are constantly shifting, ever so slightly.

Suz great introspection. Chris has no understanding of the differences in the genders.

Chris do you believe that like men, women have a unique pathway to sin, meaning a weakness or a doorway that is custom made for their nature, think sex in men as this doorway, what is the doorway in women?

Do you, Chris, believe women are morally superior to men….and carefully and with more than yes or no

I don’t plan on regularly being as verbose as I have been in this thread. The topic in the linked article touched on anger and bitterness, and so I thought it was appropriate to speak up at this juncture.

While “touched on” is a fair expression here, to be precise the topic of conversation is a woman who dismissed men’s specific concerns with feminism because the men being harmed by feminism are angry. You have essentially ignored the dismissal, and focused on “Yeah, what’s up with these men for being angry?”, all the while tossing out nuggets of wisdom like:

Want a logical wife? Be logical. Want a faithful wife? Be faithful. Want a wise wife? Be wise (in the selection of your wife too). Want a forgiving wife? Forgive. And so on. It won’t guarantee change in others, but the important part is that we ourselves are changing for the better.

Your hubris is impressive. Equally impressive has been the restraint those responding to it have shown you. Imagine if you had come to a forum of any other group of people who have been treated extremely unfairly by the law, church, and culture. Imagine if you will a discussion about a practice say in another country where women are cast out by their husbands on a whim, having their children and wealth ripped away from them and forced under threat of imprisonment to pay sums of money they aren’t capable of earning. The law, church, and culture of that country all back this practice implicitly or explicitly. Now imagine the discussion is about a man who dismissed these outrages because the women discussing them were angry. Then some cold, callous young person who knows very little but thinks he has great wisdom enters and tells them they need to stop being angry and tosses out bromides which have little or no bearing to reality.

I would say that the problem is not the church but Christianity itself. After all the central theme of Christianity is the engaged virgin (Mary) fucking with the alpha-male over all (the Holy Spirit) and getting a child by him (Jesus). The cuckolded man (Joseph) is forced by the well-fare state (God) to support the woman and her child.

Feminism is nothing but Christianity gone wild and we have come to a point in which the only way forward for Western society is to abandon Christianity.
“

Clever analogy. Too bad it’s wrong.
God chose Mary and sent the Holy Spirit. Mary did not choose the Holy Spirit. This is a crucial distinction. For without this the rest of your analogy falls apart.

As for feminism coming from Christianity theory of yours I’m thinking your hatred for both is leading you to conflate them in your mind. Just because God says sticking your dick in every pussy that says yes is usually a sin and feminism saying men are evil does not mean that feminism is somehow conspiring with Christianity to prevent you from sticking your dick wherever you want it.

@Brendan
“I do think that there is something specific about Victorianism, though, that gave rise to a particularly common brand of this, which probably either walked hand in hand with feminism, or somehow greatly facilitated its growth in the Anglo countries (which basically were the epicenter of modern feminism).”

The specific thing about Victorianism that lead to all that garbage is The Second Great Awakening and the rise of Evangelicals, who taguht that all men were in sin, at the same time as women were being taught that the paradigm of “masculinity” was evil (things such as drinking, gaming, hunting, violent sport, fighting). Research Frances Willard, as she is the single biggest reason for the WCTM, as well as being a suffragette and influental in passing prohibition and the 19th amendment.

There is another clinking, bad note in Ms. Duffy’s text. That is the throwaway line about how a man should be able to “lure her happily to bed”. There’s more than a whiff of endless courtship in that statement, for a start. One can’t help but wonder what “luring” a wife to bed. Does it mean leaving a trail of chocolate crumbs down the hall and across the bedroom floor? Is there a net over the bed?

She should want to go to bed with him. If she needs “luring”, then there’s a problem – most likely he’s become too Beta. Ideally she should be luring him, with various things, to the boudoir after dinner as an alternative to sitting in front of the TV. That’s what a woman who is submitting to her husband likely would look like. Ms. Duffy? Not so much?

“Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.”

“One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.”

empathologicalism – ”Do you, Chris, believe women are morally superior to men….and carefully and with more than yes or no”

Obviously, only Chris can actually answer this question.

But, apparently, I lack the patience to wait on him.

In both his bits about wives following the examples that their husbands set for them, and in the one about women ready to marry being able to soberly take their vows and follow in the Christina ideal, that he was suggesting that these would apply to women broadly (as opposed to a very select few).

I’ve encountered a few Churchians who’s version of female pedestalization seemed to be based on a view that woman (in addition to being created more Holy, pure, and morally superior) had no personal moral agency (or, at least a greatly reduced one), and were nearly wholly dependent upon men to guide them.

These types were those that always held that the sins of wives (and daughters, and even female friends and relatives) were the fault of the men who had failed to exercise proper Godly headship over those women.

In the large sense, they also seem to feel that failing of women (at-large) all trace back to the failure of men – Godly men, in particular – to properly lead and set examples (i.e., the tendency of modern women to ape the very worst of male behaviors is due to the back examples of those men they emulate, and the failure of other men to instruct them not to do so).

I’ve noticed that such people tend to be extremely obstinate in this view, and refuse to recognize the realities that men cannot easily tell women – any women – what they believe that they should be doing (not without being berated for trying, or getting themselves arrested for trying).

I suspect that Chris is also this sort of person. I wish I knew a term that would better selectively describe these people and their particular belief in women as strong, smart competent, Holy, and entirely desirous of following in God’s will – but, never-the-less, entirely at the mercy of men to do right by them and lead them properly.

I wish I knew a term that would better selectively describe these people and their particular belief in women as strong, smart competent, Holy, and entirely desirous of following in God’s will – but, never-the-less, entirely at the mercy of men to do right by them and lead them properly.

I may be mistaken I believe the formal version of the term you are searching for is Gilligan, with the familiar being little buddy.

FFY Said “That article is weak sauce. Blanket mis-characterizations of the manosphere without naming names or quoting actual, you know, manosphere writers. The manosphere is what she says it is, so listen up!”

To me, FFY hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, that is exactly the main problem with the article. Yes there are woman-hating slimeballs out there (by which I mean people who hate women because they are women and/or seek only to use them for sex), but she uses their existence to justify undermining those who are speaking up about social and legal injustices toward an entire sex.
—another subject entirely—
GK Chesterton also points out that her article how the ‘manosphere’ can be kind of scary and off-putting to women. I agree. As a woman, I experience the privilege of both being put on a pedestal (women and children first, and ‘if women were in charge there’d be no war’) and of our prevailing ‘you go girl’ culture in which female feelings are regarded as sufficient reason for all manner of destructive behaviors. It is most unusual (and highly disturbing for me) to hear people saying women are ‘childlike’ and ‘malicious’ or ‘only capable following a tingle’. Men, of course, hear such messages directed at their gender all day every day everywhere else (read ‘Spreading Misandry’ and ‘Legalising Misandry’).

I personally think the messages are destructive when applied as a whole to either gender. Men and women are rational human beings, capable of introspection and logical thought who ‘should’ be treated as such. Unfortunately (and ironically) our culture doesn’t hold women accountable (womens’ feelings are regarded as facts), and when a human doesn’t ‘have’ to think rationally and behave responsibly (both of which are hard), humans tend not to.

As all other women she was without responsibility and afterwards she exploited Joseph. This is just modern feminism. And you are the white knight forgiving women fallen into sin. Had Mary had any pride in herself she would have refused to marry Joseph.
And apart from that: Why do catholics celebrate virgin Mary when they should celebrate Joseph – the cuckolded man who devoted himself to bringing up a kid that was not his own.
Joseph is the hero but we never hear of him, because in Christianity the real fathers have no importance as they are substituted by the heavenly father.

Just dropping in to acknowledge that Deti is on fire at the moment in terms of articulating a lot of my thinking and probably a lot of mens views on the current situation across a number of blogs and unfortunately receiving a lot of fire as a result of it. I often joke at work at having to be the ‘lightning conductor’ sometimes with clients when the situation demands it to allow progress. Its a tough but necessary role.

“By the mid-1990s, such figures looked quaint: a third of Americans were born outside marriage. Congress, largely blaming welfare, imposed tough restrictions. Now the figure is 41 percent — and 53 percent for children born to women under 30”

Well, so much for ‘tough restrictions’, I guess. This seems to be another example that laws cannot reverse deep-rooted economic and cultural trends.

Great article, by the way. Remarkably frank for a mainstream publication.

Get tissues, your eyes will bleed when you read these idiots. They are the quintessential believers in women lacking agency of any sort, that truly NOTHING she does is not a reflection of him, even her having affairs or severing his penis i would guess, ALL goes 100% on the mans back.

Enjoy, Dalrock, if you dont know about these yahoos, you can buy me a coke because this site will generate an unlimited number of great posts for you

“Joblessness and run-ins with the law are so prevalent among young men in Lorain that many women interviewed said they had given up on finding a suitable mate.”

Yet they apparently see such unsuitable men as attractive sex partners – after all, they’re bearing their children, as the article informs us. Another example of women’s ancient cuckoldry strategy, I guess, the only difference being that the cuckolded beta is the nanny state in this case.

Another one:

‘“A baby makes a woman grow up, but not a man,” she said. “I can’t imagine ever depending on a man. I don’t trust them.”’

My gut feeling is to disagree with her, but I think she’s right, although not in the way she probably thinks. Fatherhood has traditionally not been a requirement for adulthood. Young men have undergone various rites of passage, but they didn’t necessarily involve siring children. A man can grow up in a number of ways, being a father not necessarily being one of them. A woman, on the other hand, only grows up when she becomes a mother, if then.

“Welfare Reform’ in 1996 was merely a transferral of CS costs from the taxpayer to the father, under new, super-strict penalties of imprisonment if the man cannot pay.”

Wasn’t that the Bradley Amendment? Or Welfare Reform merely tightened the screws on fathers with even more amendments? Yeah, I think that was the case. I recall GLP had a post about this act (can’t find the link) and he basically said the same thing as you did. Even welfare payments to single mothers didn’t actually decline AFAIK, they were merely channeled in different ways, like EITC and TANF.

“How many websites are there telling men not to marry? TONS. And growing.
How many websites tell women not to marry? ZERO.”

Well, the only reason anyone would tell young men not to marry is concern for their social well-being, a desire to warn them about the sh*t sandwich that is Marriage 2.0. But only a minuscule number of people have such concerns.

Really people? You’re leaving this to the atheist to answer this one correctly?

Mary and Joseph were not engaged prior to Holy Spirit visiting her and getting her pregnant. Joseph realized she was pregnant and married her so she wouldn’t live her life in shame. He is a standup guy.

Nowadays he wouldn’t be necessary because there is no shame in single motherhood.

On a side note, if the Jews were right and their Messiah has not yet been born, they are up shit creek in any liberal society.

The number of women that you describe that I know is vanishingly small. Most women I know are good helpers. Yes, they have their fits, but by and by they are good folks. My wife is 90% of the time wonderful. My negative experiences with women have usually been with Princess Shrews in the workplace. I grew up in a very patriarchal religious community where women deferred to me at about age fourteen. What you describe is not so much alien, but extreme to me. I fully believe you’ve met those women, I have to, I’ve seen them. This is why women, again as a class, can be annoying as hell which is why Proverbs talks about contentious wives being like leaky roofs.

Heck, I don’t even have the problem with my _kids_ that you described. I think _most_ of that is I was raised to believe a man was head of the house. My daughter and my son describe me as the “boss” (as does my wife which really pisses off my lefty sister-in-law). I’m not saying that to flaunt it, I’ve seen men, like you described, raised with a different set of beliefs who struggle. Even I, a creature of my generation, got better with age.

Even at work most women have, after some argumentation admitted that they like strong men who make decisions. There’s some quibbling about “rights” but that usually dies off in the end (one treads carefully here in our legal climate).

I even see MRA and some aspects of game as directly beneficial for women. Game is really a call to Aristotelian archetypes and telling us how _both_ sides can pull it off. Easily the biggest thing I was missing was the “Shit Test”. I had no idea. It makes sense though and I don’t see this as malicious as much as a way of communicating that I didn’t know about.

@Chris

Dalrock’s right that you are totally ignoring the culture in a truly horrible way.

@Dalrock,

Catholic divorce rates are lower than the national average. Offer accepted and taken. I’m not Catholic. Orthodox in some countries show the same trend (not in the US as they’ve sold out on divorce). The protestant push in the 1500’s for divorce largely corrupted them years and years ago. If you are talking evangelical protestant…well…good luck. They _are_ worse than the standard divorce rate. However, they do have a higher _marriage_ rate than the general population (serial semi-stable monogamy vs. outright sluthood).

@Empath,

I may be on my own with this but I submit its been that way for 100 years at least.

I’d say about the 1890’s. This is when the “flappers” were starting to be born.

@Deti,

Chief among those obligations is regular and satisfying sex at reasonable intervals. If she can’t feel the attraction in her mind and heart, she needs to learn to fake it, just as men whose enthusiasm for their jobs ebbs and flows must still do those jobs.

Also the men must be willing and eager for the _results_ of that sex. Otherwise we are assuming a zero sum game. That is, children must be desired.

@Mule,

I believe that in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which is the largest Orthodox body in the US, has a divorce rate of 14%

Sure that’s not an OCA number? The Greeks (and I speak as a member of a Greek church) tend to be the most secular of the groups.

@Dalrock

I think you miss the profound significance of the fact that you can’t name a congregation which hasn’t abandoned Christian sexual morality.

I’ll add to the Catholic and Orthodox any Jehovah’s Witness congregation (Arian Christian…sort of) in the world. The offending party, male or female, is automatically disfellowshiped/ex-communicated for initiating a divorce. I know of some Presbyterian and Luthern groups that do the same. I may have missed it but what _is_ your background (I’m a fairly recent reader so if you’ve stated I apologize)? Evangelical?

@Deti

As an Orthodox who grew up a Jehovah’s Witness this:
“I’m a Christian and my husband isn’t. So because he’s not submitted to God, I don’t have to submit to him.”

Also wouldn’t fly. A woman who attempted that could be punished by the Church courts. I know, I was an Elder, I did it.

No, women are not morally superior. But they are not given authority either. Maybe they usurp it, but it has not been given them, according to scripture.

To make an analogy, do we blame men in general for the unjust laws of the government? No. Any individual man has a much more limited role to play than the government. Even voting in a block has little effect these days, and can be turned against the interests of the block itself.

Likewise women should not be held responsible for the poor leadership of their husbands. But women do have power in their rightful roles, within the role of submission, that can be used to help or harm the marriage and their husbands, and they are responsible for that. And if they don’t submit at all, they are also responsible for that.

As for Dalrock’s comments on anger, I can understand it. I can even excuse it (anger). Sometimes it might even inspire change. But if it crosses over to bitterness and mockery, I question the effect it has. The Bible says, “In your anger, do not sin.” Does mockery help? Maybe it does, and I’m just blind to it, but I confess I just don’t see it.

I just read an article on narcissism in women. For the women who are stuck in such a frame of mind, they are going to be battling a lot of bitterness and anger on their own. Will it help them shake their pre-existing misconceptions if we mock them in the middle of their winter of discontent? How will this achieve any reconciliation?

When I say reconciliation, I do not mean that we have to run out and marry these narcissistic women. It may be that many of these women will never marry and may have lost any chance of family or legacy in their lives due to the lies they believed. This is not something to mock them for or gloat over. This is serious loss for them. The proper response seems almost like pity rather than mockery.

When I say reconciliation, I mean that these women need to eventually accept that they were deceived, and that most of their own problems are their own fault. The natural consequences in their lives will strongly encourage this enlightenment. If (and hopefully when) they eventually realize the truth, they will turn from enemies to friends. And maybe friendship is the best we can hope for, for many of these women. But as friends, they will want to warn younger women not to make the same mistakes they have.

So in that frame of mind, what does the earlier restaurant blog post achieve? Maybe it stirs the troops, so to speak. Maybe it encourages men to fight on. I can see that. But what are we fighting for? Isn’t it the changing of both men’s and women’s minds that we are after? And how will we achieve that if we don’t also take women into account when we write?

If we allow ourselves to become bitter in the face of wrongs against us (and I do not deny these wrongs), then we’ll lose sight of the greater battle for the heart. This is all I’m trying to warn against.

Even The Misandry Bubble says, “For anyone seeking advice on the Venusian Arts, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.”

This high moral road extends beyond sex and game, in my opinion, even to the words and arguments and techniques we use.

GKChestertonThe number of women that you describe that I know is vanishingly small.
The number of women that you describe that I know is vanishingly small. Most women I know are good helpers. Yes, they have their fits, but by and by they are good folks. My wife is 90% of the time wonderful. My negative experiences with women have usually been with Princess Shrews in the workplace. I grew up in a very patriarchal religious community where women deferred to me at about age fourteen. What you describe is not so much alien, but extreme to me. I fully believe you’ve met those women, I have to, I’ve seen them. This is why women, again as a class, can be annoying as hell which is why Proverbs talks about contentious wives being like leaky roofs.

Have you ever heard or read of a concept known as “sample error”?

What I’m describing is pretty typical within a fairly large swath of American women under the age of, oh, 65 or so. Second wave feminists, third wave feminists, entitled special snowflake princesses, GurlzGoneWild, etc. and etc. abound on the coasts and are not all that rare in flyover country. Teachers determined to make boys behave like girls are all too common in public schools.

If you really want to argue this, just count the number of abortions per year, and the number of bastards born per year and get back to me. The one is murder and the other is arguably long term child abuse. And both are just common as all get out.

From my perspective, a woman who genuinely wants to help is not in the majority under age 65. They are exceptions, not the rule.

Suppose I have an urn with 1000 sphere in it, 900 are red and 100 are green. I can talk in generalities about the urn’s contents as being “red balls”. If someone stands up and shrilly shrieks “Not All Spheres Are Red! NASAR! NASAR!” and essentially refuses to even discuss things in a rational manner then any probabalistic statements about the urn’s contents, any serious analysis, becomes impossible. Which is the actual point of NASAR – to derail any serious, sober, discussion of that urn and those spheres.

That’s how it is with women, and NAWALT. And I note that you haven’t gotten ’round to defending your claim that all men are actually to blame for feminism (and by extension, teh wimmenz are totally innocent…). Is this because you failed to understand NAWALT, and are still thinking about it? Or is it just a little game of “ow, I don’t think I want to defend my untenable claim anymore but I don’t want to admit error either…”?

ChrisTo make an analogy, do we blame men in general for the unjust laws of the government? No.

You might want to check with your sister and brother tradcons on that, since they seem to believe that all men are to blame for the success of feminism & the unjust, misandric laws that have been enacted over the last 40- odd years or so.

ChrisI just read an article on narcissism in women. For the women who are stuck in such a frame of mind, they are going to be battling a lot of bitterness and anger on their own. Will it help them shake their pre-existing misconceptions if we mock them in the middle of their winter of discontent?

Ah, so you would suggest that women with huge sense of entitlement should not be mocked? In other words, you would be opposed to men making negative statements to such women.

This does not surprise me. You don’t know anything about men, and very little about women, and I’m pretty sure there is a simple reason for that.

“christiankp says:
February 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm
…
As all other women she was without responsibility and afterwards she exploited Joseph. This is just modern feminism. And you are the white knight forgiving women fallen into sin. Had Mary had any pride in herself she would have refused to marry Joseph.
And apart from that: Why do catholics celebrate virgin Mary when they should celebrate Joseph – the cuckolded man who devoted himself to bringing up a kid that was not his own.
Joseph is the hero but we never hear of him, because in Christianity the real fathers have no importance as they are substituted by the heavenly father.

…”

First a piece of advice, read the book you plan on using as an example for an argument. Read your Bible. Get a good translation and be diligent in your study.

I’m going to address each sentence in your comment one at a time from the point of view of Biblical accuracy. I’m not going to address the dishonest equivalence you are drawing between Jesus’ family situation and a modern woman’s desire to avoid responsibility for her sinful actions.

Yes women in general want to avoid responsibility for their actions. But we are talking about Mary here not all women. Joseph was told by God that Mary did not fornicate and that he should marry her. Why don’t you go tell God He messed up by enabling a sinful woman even though the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus provided the only path humanity has for salvation and eternal life. See how that works out for ya. I’ll be here when you get back.

Did I say anything about forgiving any particular woman for any particular sin? No I did not. Also, to accuse me of being a white knight is pretty laughable. Forgiveness is one thing and as Christians we are told to forgive others of their sins against us but that does not mean we should attempt to shield any sinner from the earthly consequences of their actions. Oh no, the bitter medicine must be taken. The more bitter the better because the lesson doesn’t stick otherwise.

Had Mary refused to marry Joseph she would have starved to death. As I said earlier, God told Joseph to marry Mary. It was an act of love. You do know what that is right? Love? Because if you don’t really understand it then all my words to you are wasted. You might as well be blind and deaf.

Why do catholics celebrate/venerate and practically worship the virgin Mary? It’s idolatry pure and simple. Pagan practice taken up housekeeping inside a church institution. As for why not celebrate Joseph, well he was doing his job just like Mary was. Nothing more nothing less. He’s a human. Worshipping mere humans is verboten. You really haven’t read your Bible have you?

You say real fathers have no importance in Christianity. Once again you are proving that you haven’t read the Bible. You are also conflating what is taught by some modern practitioners for what is actually written in the book. Any verse issuing instructions concerning judgement or managment of a family were addressed to the fathers. Christianity is patriarchal after all. Church government is dealt with quite often in the New Testament, every verse makes it plain that the fathers led their families and the local churches. The Bible makes it plain that fathers are the temporal and spiritual heads of their families.

“Chris: Likewise women should not be held responsible for the poor leadership of their husbands.”

Yes, many husbands are poor leaders; have you not figured out why??? It’s not because they’re losers, or they don’t have enough faith, or they won’t submit to God. It’s because our feminist-dominated society has been actively neutering them since pre-school. If Christian men were to suddenly star “submitting to God,” (and behaving like the males He designed them to be) they’d have to stop submitting to their wives.
A. Big frickin’ No-No.
B. Who is going to teach them how?
Where are the male role models who were supposed to teach these husbands how to be good leaders? They’ve been shutting their mouths and letting women “teach” leadership for 50 years.

I don’t expect many laws to change in my lifetime. The only change that is going to happen any time soon, will be one couple, one family, at a time. It’s up to men to make these changes, for two reasons: men are meant to be leaders, and women are not going to willingly give up their power. Individual men are going to have to learn the subtle depths of feminism, learn how women’s brains work, learn to lead, and implement unwelcome changes in behavior. What part of this do you think won’t get ugly? There can be no half measures here. You will either continue to knuckle under to female rule, bleating feebly about compromise and reconciliation, or you will reclaim your testicles and change YOUR life. If you become a leader, eventually some of your friends may start to follow your example, but it will be done on the sly. You cannot preach this reality from the pulpit to a congregation that can’t comprehend it. Many of these folks think they know God’s own nature. Do you think you can tell them they don’t even know human nature? Are you, Chris, ready to believe how little YOU know of human nature?

”Just because God says sticking your dick in every pussy that says yes is usually a sin and feminism saying men are evil does not mean that feminism is somehow conspiring with Christianity to prevent you from sticking your dick wherever you want it.”

And that what not what I said. Your Christian/feminist prejudice of atheist men that all we want is screwing has misled you to misjudge my character.

The problem I have with Christianity has nothing to do with my right to stick my dick wherever I want, partly because I don’t think I have such a right and partly because I don’t want to stick my dick more than one place.

The problem I have with Christianity is that it is inherently fiendish to ordinary family life. To embark in marriage is to Christianity a sign that you could not control your sexuality because Christianity wants you to devote your whole life to God in celibacy, Therefore, celibacy has higher status than marriage and family in Christianity.

But I admit that until feminism and even communism perverted the Christian doctrines, the Church at least preached that marriage and family is better than fucking around on your own.

A couple of years ago my sister was married. Some twenty years after I my-self was married. I was very disappointed by the pastor who was talking about the feeling of love, not about the obligation of love. The pastor didn’t stress the importance of “until death does us apart” so afterwards I – as an atheist – felt called to teach the couple: “love is not a feeling but the obligation to stay together although it hurts”.

I firmly believe that Christianity has deteriorated because its central theme allows it to. The theme of God impregnating an engaged virgin and then leaving it to the cuckolded man to take care of the child is the theme allowing the women of to disrespect men and the to disregard al the sufferings men of today.

In fact it is paradoxical that the only human being in this scene who is acting in a way that could be called “Christian” is Joseph and he is barely mentioned.

As long as Christianity was handled in a patriarchal society and as long as every single woman was dependent on a single man, the damaging effects of Christianity could be controlled.

Capitalism freed women from the personal dependence of a single man. Women can now buy the services they need with money from a man on a market were it is heavily underprized. And when women are in the position that they need a man as much as a fish need a bicycle the central theme of Christianity turns into an acute danger to society, because the message of this theme is: Real fathers are unimportant. You always have a Father in heaven.

I know that you can find passages in the bible that fathers are important. But as the real and biological father is missing in the central theme of Christianity I don’t give them any significance. It’s just like feminist saying that they love men and live with a man after they have scolded all men for being oppressors and rapist. Every ideology has passages that modify their central evil message to calm down opponents.

I also know that some churches has tried to counteract feminism, but they have not done it because of their ideology but because as central institutions in society for centuries they have some experience of human nature and they saw that feminism would destroy society. Their reasons for opposing feminism were pragmatic, not religious.

However, as the basic theme of Christianity is that family is of less importance and that the biological father is virtually redundant, they could not oppose feminism with strength because they would thereby invalidate their own core beliefs.

“”However, as the basic theme of Christianity is that family is of less importance and that the biological father is virtually redundant, they could not oppose feminism with strength because they would thereby invalidate their own core beliefs.
————————————–
Not really, I wont attempt to respond with yet another level up in zingers. But this comment is just incorrect. It is textbook what for example the main media would say about Christians, this is what runs around circles of “learned” people of opposition to Christianity.

Look I am definitely not here on this blog to convert anyone, but I have to call out nonsense like that when I see it. Its ironic in a way, because it either uses or is a result of a tactic that the feminists have perfected. That is something getting repeated enough makes it seem like conventional wisdom, when originally it was just someone emoting based on a vague impression. Women do this w/ DV stats etc. You’ve just done it with this statement.
The comment it 100% incorrect.

Oh, Chris….I feel you I really do, because as I said I was you, funny thing that , as we share the same name.

So, I assume you would subscribe to the Joel and Kathy beliefs, that women are responders and men are initiators, and that the very most important thing, above all else, is that the man learn to “understand her heart”………..I hope you visited that link because what you see there is one possible end game of evangelical feminism. The full blown oppression of the male molded into exactly what the female says he should be based on her better-ness.

Do you honestly think a man can “understand a womans heart” , first off what the hell does that even MEAN? I truly cannot stand painting abstract with words , which is what that it. It means absolutely nothing, but gets bantered about as if its an end all. And its based on pathetic exegesis anyway, living in understanding means being patient, being understanding, NOT that day by day as her emotional tormentes rage he must remake himself literally by the moment.

Its like seeing the couple mas puzzle pieces and together thay make this really good thing….Im fine with that imagery though its simplistic. But your and their belief is that the shape of the piece that is the woman is fixed, and the man must utterly change his shape to fit. Oh but its worse, womens shape morphs and changes like an amoeba under magnification, and the man is supposed to become this fluidic thing also adapting and rather than snapping into place, more he POURS himself like a liquid that can be molded and changed just because it comes into contact with her, and her piece is rigid……for that moment, then it changes. This is BS man!

Peter says to be understanding, which is actually a nod to that unpredictable sometimes irrational aspect of women that Peter know about, he was saying guys, she cant help it, so be nice…..thats what that means, and you have taken that to some uber romantic emotional level that has rocketed past any practicality, has made that weakness of women into an idol to be worshiped and catered to. BUNK!

“Empathologicalism: Oh but its worse, womens shape morphs and changes like an amoeba under magnification, and the man is supposed to become this fluidic thing also adapting and rather than snapping into place, more he POURS himself like a liquid that can be molded and changed just because it comes into contact with her, and her piece is rigid……for that moment, then it changes. This is BS man!”

“christiankp says:
February 19, 2012 at 5:36 am
…
so afterwards I – as an atheist – felt called to teach the couple: “love is not a feeling but the obligation to stay together although it hurts”.

I firmly believe that Christianity has deteriorated because its central theme allows it to. The theme of God impregnating an engaged virgin and then leaving it to the cuckolded man to take care of the child is the theme allowing the women of to disrespect men and the to disregard al the sufferings men of today.
…
I know that you can find passages in the bible that fathers are important. But as the real and biological father is missing in the central theme of Christianity I don’t give them any significance.
…
However, as the basic theme of Christianity is that family is of less importance and that the biological father is virtually redundant, they could not oppose feminism with strength because they would thereby invalidate their own core beliefs.”

Yep, love isn’t a feeling, it’s an act of will.

Christianity again being equated with the practioner rather than the written practice. Like I said before but in another way, the weak link in Christianity are the Christians themselves, not the ideology as given to us by God.

Also you again seem to be equating strictly earthly situations with heavenly. You’re not getting a fundamental idea. That of God being the creator and as such whatever He does is by definition righteous because it is He that is the author of said definition. There can be no cuckholding where there is no adultery.

You seem to be saying that Joseph was the “real and biological father” in the “central theme of Christianity”. Uh, no he was not. God was the Father of Jesus.

You saying that “the biological father is virtually redundant” is a central theme in Christianity is once again shifting the point of origin. The modern defacto perception of redudant fathers is a product of the current government welfare setup with government as God. That the multi-generational shift in attitudes toward government started with some Christianese-cloaked progressive arguments does not mean Christianity as it is described in the Bible is at fault, it means there have been quite a few stupid Christians.

It’s like a repeating record with you. The depth and breadth of your lack of understanding on this subject is surprising even for a self-identifying atheist.

You should stop now. Any more arguments you make will just be slapped down as well on merely factual grounds. I don’t have to point to faulty logic all I have to do is point to the Bible and to recent western history. That should tell you something. Read a Bible and study some history.

Of course I know that Joseph was not the “real and biological father of Jesus”. God was the father of Jesus. But it is exactly this that shows that real fathers are not important to Christianity. In the central theme of Christianity there is no human father. This is my objection.

And by this I will stop my discussion with you as I never intended to convert a Christian. Prove that I am wrong instead of insulting me.

Ok. I read the misandry bubble. My read of the section on women’s impending obsolescence was this:

‘As sexual entertainment technology advances, men who have a hard time getting women will soon be able to effectively satisfy their physical sexual needs virtually. Because the virtual women are so impossibly attractive, the betas will no longer be attracted to everyday attractive women and won’t marry them. However men will still need to feel the love that VR cannot provide, so women’s only recourse will be to be nice to men if they ever want to have sex/children/marriage.’

A thought on women as basically entirely amoral occurred to me while reading this thread and some other stuff and I figured I might as well toss it is, cue calling me a “mangina” and a “white knight”.

I think I am going to have to suggest that perhaps women are not the amoral creatures that many of the guys commenting in the thread have suggested, or at least not amoral in the way that is being suggested.

I believe it was TFH in another thread that offered a really deep insight into what is wrong with the way feminism tends to teach women, that being that it isnt so much what it is teaching women as what it isn’t teaching them. That it is seeking to remove all civilizational restraint on women and basically letting them devolve into feral animals. Or at least that was the idea I was left with after reading whoever it was.

Now it got me to thinking with all this talk of “women are amoral” etc, that actually it probably isn’t true at all. Or at the very least, men are really not that different. If you raise men in circumstances of no restraint and everything possible is done to shield these men from the consequences of their behavior what do you think they would turn out like? Exactly the way men and women go wrong when you cant be bothered to civilize them is going to be different as men and women are not the same, but surely this capacity for winding up feral is roughly the same.

What I thought was interesting though, and I doubt this is an original thought on my part but it seemed worth tossing out anyway, Is that we do see feral men (or mostly feral men) today. They are called gang members and we tend to incarcerate them and otherwise deal with them quite harshly. Unfortunately instead of treating feral women the same way, we instead give them university jobs and let them teach their lunacy to the next generation instead of civilizing the girls properly.

“Contrary to the myth, it is women who require more, stricter training to become civilized, than men. ”

This may be true, it may not. What is obvious though is that we can see the results of not bothering to instill such civilization into women. Who would have thought shrill harpies with petri dishes for crotches and no ability to bond with a spouse would be the result of this? Oh wait, all of human history up to the point we decided we were smarter than that.

Hmm. Interesting. I like to speculate about technological trends, although I personally don’t like where you think that one is going, ha ha.

I’d also like to know why you think women require more and stricter training to become civilized than men.

I have my own idea: [since women are the ‘gatekeepers of sex’ (which creates new human life), it is more essential to civilization that they be in full control of themselves and make careful, logical decisions.].

I guess the problem with your observation is that it will be inconclusive. Yes women who have been left feral behave like that, but what do you base the other requirement of your idea on? That men similarly raised to be left to go feral while being fed a steady stream of entitlement mentality drivel would not turn out similarly messed up?

There seems to be no actual dispute that women as they turn out today when left to go feral are horribly damaged and a threat to anyone and everyone they get even slightly annoyed at, but why do you assume men would turn out differently if subject to the same forces?

“Contrary to the myth, it is women who require more, stricter training to become civilized, than men. ”
This may be true, it may not.

I think it is true, due to our hormones. They fluctuate continuously throughout our cycles, triggering emotions that have no obvious (to us) cause, which in turn alter our perceptions – of everything. We may always “know” right from wrong once we’ve been taught, but we are far more likely than men to rationalize immoral choices. Men are simply more emotionally stable, and that suits their masculine purposes, just as emotional “flexibility” serves our original feminine purposes. Women need to be flexible, but since we no longer allow men to stabilize us, we’ve gone spastic.

I surely see what you mean that modern women (as an amorphous, undifferentiated group) act as you have described more frequently than men in these ways: 1) cruelty towards those they love; 2) acting as though there are no consequences to their actions (and being outraged at the consequences when they come); 3) women being angry about female-paid alimony.

I know there are differences in male and female brains, but do not know of any documented physical differences in the male and female brain that account for these specific behaviors though, so I [currently, in light of what I know, which is really not a lot] think the explanation for this behavior difference is cultural rather than genetic.

I suppose I keep asking because it bothers me to think that some wildly dangerous beast lurks inside me, cruel to those I most love and destructive to the world I know. Ha.

To a lesser extent it also bothers me to hear (quite convincingly) that my real value is tied to my looks and not to my brains and my personality.

Thanks for the replies and insights guys (in the most gender non specific way possible). I think Suz is probably onto something there, although I might note that it is a question of different rather than more perhaps? I don’t know on that score.

I’m not meaning to dismiss your observations @TFH, I am just not sure your data bares out the basic claim that women require more civilzation than men. All of the examples you note could reasonably be traced to the results of failing to properly civilize women rather than the observation that they require more. Just an issue of cause and effect and that is usually very difficult to establish well especially in the social sciences.

I know I will be accused of just saying NAWALT, but as to point four above, I actually don’t think that is true for anything but the hardline feminists. I suspect there is an awful lot of ignorance and when i’ve pointed out to some women I know the ways that laws are unjust they usually do see the point and are often more wary of support for such things in future.

I guess my own experience leads me to conclude that women aren’t necessarily harder to civilize, but we both pretty clearly agree that they have been left to go feral, which is an insight I must thank you for again, as I think it is actually a really deep and somewhat non-obvious one.

TFH, not sure how to ask this. About men being more civilized, I’ve been mulling over the differences between male and female ambition. If women are hypergamous, are men conversely hypogamous? If a wise man marries a lower-status woman to increase his chances of satisfying her hypergamy, it hardly makes sense that he would be attracted to high-status women. Is male ambition born of the need to attain higher status than the high-status women they want? That level of ambition requires courage, focus and discipline, whereas women are required to do far less in order to attract higher-status males. Also, a lot of what women must do to attract high-status men involves interpersonal manipulation and even outright dishonesty – if he thinks we’re far more awesome than we really are, he’ll work that much harder to win us over. (I think this explains why men and women do the same tasks, professionally or otherwise, so differently.) Wouldn’t it make sense that their own innate need to attain high status, motivates men to behave better, or more productively? Ambition can be a very civilizing force.

Oh I get what you are saying. I am just wondering how much of it effect rather than cause.

An interesting though also related to this is the observation that women are hypergamous. I wonder about this one at times. In terms of seeking a “higher status” male for the purposes of procreation and being a stable provider and the like this seems to be obviously true.

But when it is extended to the idea that a woman will ditch a spouse and seek to “upgrade” when a more powerful man comes along, I am not sure this is anywhere near as “part of women’s make up” as is commonly suggested. I think that entirely negative aspect of female hypergamy is much more likely the result of conditioning and the effects of the training women get from the carousel rather than some sort of innate inclination. That this aspect of the behavior is actually more the product of the damage making and unmaking bonds that are not supposed to be unmade does. YMMV on that observation, but from personal observation of virgins who marry and wait versus “near virigns” vs sluts etc, it seems that virgins who marry (and wait till marriage etc, “good girls” as it were), although hypergamous to some degree in the selection of a spouse are much more willing to “tough it out” and are less susceptible to being “unhhaaaaaappppyyy”.

I don’t know if I just have rose coloured glasses, it is simply the product of the females around me, or something else, but that is just what I have observed. I suspect teasing out hard data on it would actually be difficult to do given the variables.

Jason,
Women are also programmed to overcome emotional trauma better than men. This allows a woman to recover from the (fairly likely) loss of one husband, and bond to another, so she can continue to reproduce. She also need a man with enough wealth to feed his stepchildren. Combine this ability to “love” more than once, with a permissive society, and the results are disastrous. I think it’s safe to say it’s both physical and cultural.

Parasitic sluts rarely know how to define their environment, look at christian women as a prime example, while society disintegrates around them, they blame men & screw over betas, instead of working with men to rebuild a society, built by men for men

Women as a group are incompetence personified when it comes to acknowleding their own behaviour

Theyre environmental constructs, with very little in the way of individuation or sense of objectivity & competition

Women brutally punish & ostracise anyone not conforming to society, or social structures, or acting alpha

Their inability to see the value in brains over context driven social dominance, is a major problem for the alpha cock slut

There are very real consequences for a womans need for protection & gold digging

Unfortunately these consequences will lead to their obsolesence

We’re already seeing the effects of pornography, as men everywhere bond to porn, & video games, instead of women

While the rest become desensitised to ordinary real life chicks, through tv & the corporatisation of social acculturation

While a womans need for pre-selection, decimates any chance she may have had, in becoming biologically viable to the betas who are behind the driving seat of our societies

Women through promiscuity, hypergamy & the 80\20 principle will in turn drive their own obsolesence

Unless you’re referring to someone else, it seems to me that she’s going out of her way to defend summers, not “scold” him. She claims “he was a supportive and deeply caring mentor for me and many other women who had the opportunity to work for him” and that he’s a friend to women. The most critical thing she said about him was that he was “insensitive,” and it seems that he said that himself (he called his speech a “mistake;” he might have been caving in to feminist pressure, but his mentee wouldn’t want to contradict him), so Sandberg is just repeating what her mentor said. Now, maybe you know more about the relationship between these two people than I do, but from what I can tell Ms. Sandberg seems to simply be displaying loyalty to her mentor.

Was that addressed to me? I think we agree, I think we may have just phrased it differently. I’m suggesting the trade up and ditch the old style of hypergamy that exists today in many places is a result of damage to the women who behave like that and that it is actually not the way such things work “innately”.

It does seem to be the case that we imprint on early sexual experiences and bond tightly (At a biochemical level) to our first sexual partner but that this bonding is eroded in a logarithmic fashion after the first sexual partner (based on the increased likelyhood of divorce as the number of sexual partners increase, though this is obviously just a hypothesis).

As the sluts demand equality with the traditionalists, women as always batting for team woman, traditionalists will simply claim sluts as victims & in turn destroy the virtues of feminity

As slutty preacher daughters have done for centuries … with complicity of their mothers, & their preacher fathers looking the other way … christian families have always worn the veil of christianity when it came to their daughters

Hence the destruction of christianity & traditional families

Religion & traditionalism is only effective when men stop turning the other cheek to their women & daughters

Victim status whoring, the hill all manginas die on … including modern manginachristianity …

Oh another thought from earlier in the thread. People were (rightly) commenting on the decline of much of authentic Christianity in modern western churches. That core principles are ignored and their birthright sold for a bowl of feminism.

What should be noted is that most of these people aren’t Christians any longer, they are actually what would rightly be termed a “Moral Therapeutic Deist”. They want a god who provides some basic moral structure to their lives, who will be there as a shoulder to cry on, but who is otherwise absent and doesn’t cramp their style to much.

Unfortunately many “christians” are actually MTD’s and not Christians at all. This isn’t intended as a slight or some sort of attempt to make some “one true Scotsman” argument, just an observation on what they actually believe and how they behave. MTD’s usually have the theological depth of a puddle and no real understanding of what Christianity is actually on about.

If only we could persuade such people and groups to abandon the “christian” label so we can tell people apart more easily. Maybe tell them it is intolerant or sexist or something.

Jason, yes we basically agree. Personal experience leads me to think that women who chase “bad boys” may just have missed out on what she would once have naturally had – the chance to bond to a man whom society encouraged to behave in a dominant way all along. During courtship and thereafter. Women viscerally need at least some initial “shock and awe” from a man. I did (and do) a bit with my wife, and it has helped us stay bonded for 26 years. Feminism has attempted to save women from this, but has simply emasculated men and forced women to look for their needs with genuinely abusive (emotionally or physically) men.

My basic point was that getting married to a man she was expected to obey and being deflowered by him used to assuage a woman’s natural hypergamy. Feminists largely took that away, and now women desperately chase hypergamy all their life.

That is quite interesting. Is there any data on that? It seems a plausible hypothesis and does seem to have good explanatory scope. I ask as I am invovled with a Christian Ministry that deals with “sexual brokeness” and so I would be interested in any more info you might have to flesh this idea out a bit. Seems like an interesting data point.

@David Collard
“Feminists largely took that away, and now women desperately chase hypergamy all their life.”
I dunno, I think the woman involved took that away with her own choices.
As I understand it, feminism has had only 2 major goals:
1. give women the license to have sex with whomever they want, and in that way also give them the right to say who is attractive, which leads us to
2. the women of step (1) making it nearly impossible for older men to be involved with younger women since the sluts of step 1. want a cohort of sex-starved men to be their slaves.

That’s how it is with women, and NAWALT. And I note that you haven’t gotten ’round to defending your claim that all men are actually to blame for feminism (and by extension, teh wimmenz are totally innocent…). Is this because you failed to understand NAWALT, and are still thinking about it? Or is it just a little game of “ow, I don’t think I want to defend my untenable claim anymore but I don’t want to admit error either…”?

And you can quote me saying something like the “wimmenz are totally innocent? I see no reason to defend anything I never wrote. Saying that there is a share of the blame and that men can be treated as a class in discussion is not the same as saying there is no blame. That you can’t understand the difference is staggering.

Also, I am aware of sample error. I’m also aware that people are formed by both nature and nurture and that we have a culture right now that nurtures rampant feminism. Women’s natures are being actively distorted. A sizable amount of this is being done by women, some of it through cultural inertia, but it is also being done by men through comments like those found here that praise “honest” pick-up artists.

TFH: You do not seem to agree with Wikipedia on how long women have had the right to vote (for just being citizens).

In Sweden women were actually given the vote (for just being citizens) before men.

“The right to vote in national elections was not returned to women until 1919, and was practiced again in the election of 1921, for the first time in 150 years.[5] In the election of 1921 more women than men had the right to vote because women got the right just by turning 18 years old wile men had to undergo military service for the right to vote. In a decision 1921 men received the same right as women and this was practiced in the election of 1924.”

TFH: I am not sure how you read my comment, but what I mean is that there already is at least one country with 100 years of of female suffrage and many countries with 90+ years of female suffrage, so it’s time to make conclusions or set higher limits.

As I have written a couple of times, Sweden is bad, but the Anglosphere seems worse from what I can read here. The two foremost Swedish MRAs have been on TV in the dominating channel and have written in the highest distribution morning paper, for example.

Keep female hypergamy in mind. The average women simply doesn’t find the majority of men sexually attractive. This puts a natural ’cap’ on successful male sexual expression. Even if social restraints were removed from the sexual behavior of beta males, most women still wouldn’t want to have sex with them. Even the rollback of feminist-inspired laws regarding rape and sexual harassment wouldn’t induce much of a change on that front, because most betas are psychologically incapable of rough sexual advances, not to mention rape.

On the other hand, there’s no similar natural cap on female sexual behavior. Men find the great majority of women sexually attractive, alphas want to have all the casual sex they can, and most women are willing to go along. Once freed from restraints, they become feral and ride the alpha cock carousel.

With respect to women and morality, the fundamental issue is that female attitude towards morality in itself is different from men’s, not that male and female feral behavior is theoretically similar.

Morality itself is a concept originating from men. The probable reason is that men are fundamentally organizers who only thrive when they cooperate. Thus they have traditionally formed hierarchical blood-bonded communities, which were the basic building blocks of clans, tribes and so on. This is impossible without all male members of such communities voluntarily submitting to a leader, which necessitates a clearly defined code of behavior they can agree on, which in turn necessitates the invention of some sort of morality. They brought women into their blood-bonded communities and forced their own morality on them in order to prevent them from turning men against each other, and thus they kept the peace and preserved cooperation. Hence the invention of lifelong monogamy, religion and civilization.

All men barring psychopaths have an awareness of morality, some sort of moral code. Generally speaking, they think and talk about abstract moral issues a lot. Male attitude towards morality as such is usually bimodal. The average man either approves of a moral code and tries to strengthen it, or he openly and scornfully rejects it and subscribes to a different code, which may or may not be his own creation.

You see this everywhere. Many Enlightenment-era thinkers, for example, were libertines who loudly condemned the Church and Christian dogma itself, preferring to believe in a philosophy of freedom and materialism. PUAs like Roissy pump and dump women, but they’re aware that society finds their behavior morally objectionable, and they understand the reasons for that. Some men commit robberies and so on, but they’re nevertheless aware that what they’re doing is wrong. Even organized crime groups adhere to a code of morality of their own, even though it’s basically nothing else than mainstream burgeoisie morality turned on its head. In fact, even lowly, petty criminal gangs have a moral code of some sort.

Women, on the other hand, have a completely different attitude. Unlike men, they aren’t naturally imbued with any sense of justice, probably because it’s unnecessary for childrearing and even detrimental to their sexual strategy i.e. hypergamous serial monogamy (extracting resources from a beta) coupled with opportunistic cheating (hunting for alpha sperm during ovulation). Women have no concept, no awareness of the very idea of morality. They neither support nor reject any moral code, they’re simply ignorant of it. A woman won’t have a concept of morality unless men teach her from young age. This explains why women gravitate towards men who openly reject a moral code: outlaws, criminals etc. Nothingness (woman) is merely a tool in the hands of Denial (the deviant man). It’s no wonder why there have never been either female theologians/moralists or female libertines who loudly paraded their anti-morality.

A woman can commit the foulest act imaginable and it won’t even occur to her that what she has done is, you know, objectionable for some reason or another. She can rationalize and excuse any behavior, empathize with someone else regardless of his or her deplorable actions, protect her son from persecution even if he’s a serial rapist. She can butt-rape her husband in divorce court and she’ll be genuinely surprised and shocked when someone has the audacity to openly disapprove.

Woman represents base nature – she can be mindless, senseless, utterly merciless, incapable of transcending itself in a way a man cannot be.

And you can quote me saying something like the “wimmenz are totally innocent?

It is an extension of your “All men are guilty of supporting feminism” notion. That’s why I wrote the words and by extension…. I note that you have not attempted to correct your wrongheaded use of the term NAWALT, will you get around to that soon?

I see no reason to defend anything I never wrote. Saying that there is a share of the blame and that men can be treated as a class in discussion is not the same as saying there is no blame.

Eh, it’s close enough. You may find this “men are to blame for everything bad” notion of yours to be new, and novel, but it isn’t. Feminists and traditionalists have been spouting it for years. It’s part of the “reasoning” behind many bad laws enacted in the last 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 years – every one of which was passed with the support of “conservatives”, social and otherwise. The fact that you’d rather have this argument, than defend your original claim is not surprising, either.

I suggest you examine your premises. Start with the notion that men are inherently bad while women are inherently good – there’s an idea that doesn’t stand up to the real world. (DId you use a search enging to look up Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates, yet? Do you need any help with that task?)

Women, on the other hand, have a completely different attitude. Unlike men, they aren’t naturally imbued with any sense of justice, probably because it’s unnecessary for childrearing and even detrimental to their sexual strategy i.e. hypergamous serial monogamy (extracting resources from a beta) coupled with opportunistic cheating (hunting for alpha sperm during ovulation). Women have no concept, no awareness of the very idea of morality. They neither support nor reject any moral code, they’re simply ignorant of it. A woman won’t have a concept of morality unless men teach her from young age. This explains why women gravitate towards men who openly reject a moral code: outlaws, criminals etc. Nothingness (woman) is merely a tool in the hands of Denial (the deviant man). It’s no wonder why there have never been either female theologians/moralists or female libertines who loudly paraded their anti-morality.

I would say this differently.

It seems to me that women do reason in moral terms, but they tend to dislike abstract moral rules –that is, rules that apply to everyone at all times under all conditions, barring a few very limited exceptional circumstances. Women seem to prefer contextual/relationship-based moral reasoning — that is, the entire situation is looked at and then the circumstances determine whether the degree to which (another big difference — women tend to reason in this area in shades of grey, not black and white as men generally do) act was moral or not, rather than starting from the idea of a hard and fast rule and applying it virtually always, barring a truly exceptional case. There are literally oceans of difference between these two ways of “doing” moral reasoning, and vastly different results in many cases. Suffice to say, however, that a context/relationship-based approach to moral reasoning is deeply flawed when it comes to adult behavior that is anything beyond the mundane, because the concept of a common baseline is lost in the sea of relative context. This is why Stephen Pinker (who is a feminist, but is skeptical of the blank slate idea) is scared to accept this approach, which was probably best described by Carol Gilligan: if it is true, Pinker reasons, women should not be permitted to serve as judges.

I suspect that this tendency to favor context and relationship in moral reasoning stems not only from what you have said above (hypergamy and opportunism), but also from the role as primary caregivers/raisers of children, where meting out moral justice to the children is often very contextual and relational rather than simply the enforcement of abstract rules like a court would do. Still, even if appropriate for that context, it doesn’t work on the level of how adult humans should be relating to each other, and what moral rules should govern these relations.

I had this argument literally dozens of times with female classmates in law school back in the early 90s, the most radical of whom were arguing that a different set of legal rules should apply to female behavior, because applying abstract moral rules to women is essentially the patriarchy forcing male “ways of determining the moral” on women, who see things differently morally — a kind of “law rape”. Needless to say, this is simply preposterous, but it was quite humorous to debate this at the time.

Then why do you make statements about all women based upon the tiny sample you have been exposed to? I know a man who is married to a woman with red hair, but I’m sure he would never be so foolish as to claim all wives are redheads. I also know of a man whose wife decided, as part of the divorce she filed, to have an abortion. It would be interesting to see you explain to him what a helper his now-ex wife was.

I’m also aware that people are formed by both nature and nurture and that we have a culture right now that nurtures rampant feminism. Women’s natures are being actively distorted. A sizable amount of this is being done by women, some of it through cultural inertia, but it is also being done by men through comments like those found here that praise “honest” pick-up artists.

PUA’s are a tiny minority of men. They probably always will be, for reasons that ought to be obvious. But a sizeable percentage of women – over 40% – choose to give birth to children without getting married. And tell me, how many women had abortions in the US last year? Was it a few thousand? Or was it more? Did anyone put a gun to their head and force them to do that? Or did they choose to do that?

If all women were the chase, modest, inherently moral helpers that you apparently believe them to be, PUA’s would never, ever get sex. But, in fact, PUA’s find it easy to get sex from willing women. Women who go out to bars and clubs, looking for a man to sex them.

Examine your premises. Start with the notion that women are inherently moral – test it against reality. Not the reality of your sample, but against a larger sample – say, the female population of the US. Would inherently moral helpers decide to bust up their marriage so often that they file 60% of the divorce actions (except for the 35 to 45 age group, where I believe women file 65% of actions).

Examine why you seem — seem — to be willing to defend women’s actions, no matter how bad they may be. Because until you can admit that some women are bad people, you can’t constructively criticize any of them.

“Hollanhund: Women, on the other hand, have a completely different attitude. Unlike men, they aren’t naturally imbued with any sense of justice, probably because it’s unnecessary for childrearing and even detrimental to their sexual strategy i.e.”

Is there documentation for this? It’s an interesting theory, but I tend to disagree with it. I think a sense of justice is necessary in childrearing, as children must be exposed to it consistently (not just when Dad’s around) in order for them to grow into responsible adults. Purely logical justice IS detrimental to our sexual strategy, so we rationalize unjust behavior to attain the best resources for our offspring. If being “fair” means my children eat less so someone else’s children can eat more, well then it sucks to be them.

Men have the same capacity to rationalize injustice when it comes to “tribal” enemies though. I see the difference as a matter of scale (the size of the tribe) but it’s the same principle. Men and women will abandon justice to protect resources for their children. My theory is that men will protect the whole tribe because some of their children might belong to other men’s wives; protecting the whole tribe protects their own DNA. Women, however, know exactly which children bear their DNA, and each women has fewer children than each man – a smaller tribe within the tribe. In a primitive society where resources are scarce, men and women MUST be equally moral; men who exhaust themselves daily to provide food and shelter, don’t have time to “keep women in line,” especially when much of their work is done away from the women. Primitive societies didn’t fall into anarchy every time the men left to hunt or fight enemies.

The societal problems come with surplus resources. Women, being more emotional and less rational (but not totally irrational) are prone to get spoiled by excess – to attach emotional value to “stuff.” We enjoy and become greedy with the resources provided for our children. We divert some of those resources to ourselves. I think throughout history the bottom-line definition of a “bad mother” is one who neglects (or even kills) her children, and uses their allotted resources for her own personal gain. Bad mothers usually don’t start out bad; they rationalize this “theft” a little bit at a time, until they become inured to their children’s needs. This is easy to justify when there are plenty of resources to share – the children don’t suffer from the loss, and even men go along with it to a degree. A man who can afford luxuries for his children AND his wife, has high status.

Women having no innate morality isn’t conducive to species survival. It also justifies feminist “protection” of women, by assuming we are incapable of being responsible. In the early days, feminism protected decent women from having to cooperate with bad men. Now it protects all women from having to cooperate with all men. Feminism assume that women need to be protected. Secular feminism protects women from men, and “religious” feminism (since it’s “different”) protects women from men AND/OR from themselves (by turns, and rather capriciously.) In isolated situations women can survive without men, so technically we don’t really need protection for ourselves; we need it for or children. I think female “amorality” derives from our instincts to protect the smallest tribe-within-a-tribe, combined with cultural permission to be unaccountable.

BrendanWomen seem to prefer contextual/relationship-based moral reasoning — that is, the entire situation is looked at and then the circumstances determine whether the degree to which (another big difference — women tend to reason in this area in shades of grey, not black and white as men generally do) act was moral or not, rather than starting from the idea of a hard and fast rule and applying it virtually always, barring a truly exceptional case

This is well put. A shorthand version is: “Women generally are concerned about fairness while men are generally concerned with justice“, with all the NAWALT / AWALT / NAMALT / AMALT caveats one cares to toss around.

BrendanI had this argument literally dozens of times with female classmates in law school back in the early 90s, the most radical of whom were arguing that a different set of legal rules should apply to female behavior, because applying abstract moral rules to women is essentially the patriarchy forcing male “ways of determining the moral” on women, who see things differently morally — a kind of “law rape”. Needless to say, this is simply preposterous, but it was quite humorous to debate this at the time.

I wonder how many of those women became practitioners of family law? How many will go on to become judges?

“”In isolated situations women can survive without men, so technically we don’t really need protection for ourselves; we need it for or children. I think female “amorality” derives from our instincts to protect the smallest tribe-within-a-tribe, combined with cultural permission to be unaccountable.”””
——————————————–

That isnt really true. In the most basic way, women are safe/free/whatever at the pleasure of men, there is no isolated case where that is not true.

The amorality may come from THINKING is comes from wanting to protect the smallest tribe in tribe….this has the problem of already being past step one of rationalization….IOW to get there from being moral….you have to already have made a rationalization.
That why Christian women so love the personal Jesus, on matters of moral choices he listens to her rationale and adjusts his view accordingly…..”he understands”…..which looks absolutely nothing like the real Jesus, who, she wouldnt like all that mush really no matter how nice he is

In the most basic way, women are safe/free/whatever at the pleasure of men,

Arguably true, but one could argue that this proves men in general do indeed bear some responsibility for feminism–though I doubt Messrs. Chris and Chesterton would make the argument I’m about to. As you imply, men are stronger than women, both physically and mentally. It is, therefore, a strange thing to believe the weaker, dumber half of the population is capable of “oppressing” the stronger, smarter half. Either the stronger half is complicit in its oppression in some way, or the other half isn’t as weak and stupid as it’s supposed to be. Nobody ever became a slave because they could outfight or outwit their master, after all.

Now, perhaps a response might be, “apex fallacy! Only about 20% of mangina gender traitor politicians helped the wimminz! The rest of us are innocent!” So a tiny fraction of the male population–manginas, who are supposedly weaker, dumber, and overall more pathetic than True Men–managed to pull one over the other 4/5ths of the male population? This is hardly easy to believe either. For all the vitriol than manosphere pours on “manginas” and/or male politicians, that 20% of men were apparently smart and cunning enough to screw over the other 80%. Either the manginas aren’t quite as stupid and pathetic as they’re made out to be, or the 80% of Real Noble Men aren’t quite as intelligent as they’re made out to be. To paraphrase an aphorism, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is sure interested in you. I’ll admit that If all those (supposedly) intelligent and virtuous truck drivers, oil riggers, and janitors were “too busy” to pay attention to what their elected leaders were doing, they may not be guilty of active collaboration with the horrors of feminism. However, it’s hard to feel much sympathy for a group that allowed itself to be exploited through its own ignorance, apathy, and blind faith in its leaders.

I don’t know, Empath. First of all, though it’s rare, women can survive alone and in small groups, even in the wilderness; we just can’t successfully reproduce. Also, I’m talking about our most basic instincts, which are geared toward successful reproduction. Protecting the smallest tribe (me and my child who can’t survive without a mother) is a part of maternal instincts, without which humans would not have survived. However, women identify so closely with our infants that it’s easy to see their needs as our needs. Even today, most (non-addicted) single mothers will use their “resources” to feed and house their children before getting that new tattoo, but they might get the tat before taking the child to a doctor or buying warmer boots. It’s usually after our children’s most basic needs are met that we screw up our priorities and use our surplus to enrich OUR lives instead of theirs.

Defining morality is tricky in itself, too. I don’t personally believe in “abstract” morality, because it can be arbitrary; I prefer a rational definition – doing more MEASURABLE good than harm. Women tend to ignore certain variables while measuring – values that are not central to the survival of the “smallest tribe.” Again, men do this too, with their central focus being a bigger tribe. So which is more moral? Survival of the big tribe or survival of the small tribe-within-the-tribe? Neither, because neither tribe will thrive without the other. Men’s and women’s moral priorities are different, but they are both necessary to the survival of the species. One is not objectively better than the other. Female morality gets warped when resources are plentiful, or are perceived to be plentiful. And society as a whole approves of and envies those who have excess resources. We reinforce women’s need to acquire resources for the “person” that is “my baby/me.” We have managed to convince ourselves that all of our excessive materialism is “for the children.”

Immorality is essentially a result of greed “justified” by individual needs. Male and female needs are slightly different, so our immorality manifests itself differently, but our differing kinds of immorality are equally destructive. The fact that female immorality is now so totally out of control, is an entirely man-made phenomenon. We as a culture have protected women from the consequences of our immoral decisions, and the effect has snowballed to the extent that women are now using our essentially moral and productive instincts to fuel immeasurable evil. Throughout history, the unchecked greed of both genders has destroyed many societies, exactly the way it is destroying ours. Women, and men, should be blamed for what they do, not what they are, because “what they are” is the reason we are not extinct. How does one define “morality” to exclude the female instincts which are necessary for survival?

Good point, Hurp. The evolution of feminism is subtle and complex. Oversimplifying it by blaming this or that aspect of it, ignores its depth. There are many reasons why both men and women are to blame for feminism.

Did all the people who voted for Obama in 2008 intend to force religious charities to pay for employee abortions? By your logic, they did. By mine, they didn’t. Feel free to discuss this bit of current affairs if you wish. The HHS rule making is an excellent example of feminism in action.

“AR: Did all the people who voted for Obama in 2008 intend to force religious charities to pay for employee abortions? By your logic, they did.”
Most of them, not specifically. Most voted either out of ignorance (due in part to apathy, and in part to deception) or in favor of “liberal” policy goals among which that could reasonably be expected.

Furthermore, Hurp, there was a time in the US when the government was not as powerful as it became in the 1970’s, 80’s and onward. It was quite possible to vote for a political party in elections and more or less ignore politics the rest of the time. The idea that an entire bureaucracy could be created by an executive order, for example, was not exactly heard of. So when, for example, the “no-fault” divorce law was signed into law in California circa 1968, there was primed across the country a political group ready to push the same law in most other states. The bar association, of course, but also Country Club Republicans, progressive Democrats, etc. were all ready to move – in some cases, the legislation was already written and just waiting for a chance to push it. The average man and average woman had effectively no voice in this decision. It was taken care of in legislative hearings and steamrolled through to enactment.

I don’t know how much involvement in politics you have. I can speak from personal experience that dealing with a part-time state legislature on one issue can be mind numbing if you have a job, because the ways in which a law you oppose can be linked to others, attached by some agency “rulemaking” or otherwise end run around the populace are many. At the Federal level it is much worse, and that’s why many groups of people maintain extensive lobbying organizations in Washington, DC – because it’s a full time job for multiple people to keep track of such things.

I realize it is emotionally satisfying for women, feminists, tradcons, etc. to blame all social ills on men. Certainly a more nuanced approach – that social elites have made some decisions that may have been good for them (“no-fault” divorce for example) that have proven to be disasters for pretty much everyone else – may not be as emotionally satisfying as bashing men yet again. But it’s more truthful.

However, because women as a class (paging GKChesterton) clearly realize material benefits from feminism, it is entirely reasonable by your standards to hold them responsible in some degree for what they have participated in. Assuming, of course, that you are willing to have women held responsible for any outcomes of any actions at all. Many people don’t want to do that – it is one of the grating hypocritical games of the age, that one second teh wimmenz are strong, independent, fearless entities full of moxie, then when ti comes time to “pay the bill” they are shrinking, helpless, weak gurlz who need a Big Strong Man to pick up the check.

I don’t think Hurp is blaming men for feminism. He’s blaming men AND women. We are all complicit. Instead of openly rebelling against it, men at all levels of society have been adapting to it, which has allowed it to grow. The “leaders,” for a variety of reasons, allowed themselves to be led. If Men’s Rights had taken off as a grass roots movement in the 60’s or 70’s, we would not be where we are today. Women’s Rights started as a grass roots movement, one which “succeeded” spectacularly.

The basic fact is that men, unlike women, have always been expected by the rest of society to fill the roles of organizers and leaders. Single men have been expected to join some sort of all-male group (army etc.) and submit to male leadership, fathers have been expected to lead their families, men with higher status have been expected to lead clans, tribes, peoples, entire countries, companies etc. It’s impossible to fulfill these roles without agreeing on a clearly defined moral code, adhering to it and forcing everyone else to adhere to it. Woman can afford to indulge in fairness, contextual moral reasoning and whatnot; men can’t.

Physically stronger, yes. ’Mentally’ stronger? That’s not so black-and-white, I think. ’Less rational’ does not equal ’mentally weaker’. Women overcome emotional trauma more easily than men, they generally invest less in their relationships of any type and aren’t easily manipulated into self-sacrifice.

Capable of ’oppressing’, no. Capable of manipulating? Very much so.

Once society becomes complex enough, 80% of men will have pretty much zero say in political decisions, whether they’re manginas or not.

Abstract morality is abstract precisely because it’s not meant to be arbitrary. That’s the whole point. ’Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is such an abstract moral code, for example, obviously invented by men. When looking at things in context, one will find that some spouses make it easy for the other to live up to this code, that people have different levels of sexual appetite and so on. But this rule was nevertheless imposed in everyone in many societies. In some places, it still is. Obviously there’ve always been people who found this unfair, people who suffered because of it, even when innocent perhaps. So yes, there was collateral damage, as they say. But if society is to endure, such abstract codes are necessary. If the code becomes ’Thou shalt not commit adultery unless >insert female rationalization here<’, relationships become unstable, families fall apart and eventually society dissolves. That’s why contextual moral reasoning has no place among those entrusted to run and uphold society i.e. men.

SuzWomen’s Rights started as a grass roots movement, one which “succeeded” spectacularly.

For some definition of “grass roots”, I guess. You might want to consider how much of the second stage feminism was funded by grants from Ford and other foundations. It’s pretty easy to be an activist if you don’t have to work for a living.

And you’re wrong about Men’s Rights. There were men pushing back in the 1970’s, and 1980’s, mostly on their own. Ever hear of them? As a rule, the elite media avoided covering them at all, save as a joke. But Gloria Steinem could call a press conference & there’d be someone from the NY Times, Wasington Post, etc. there to take down every word.

But men do. Men’s “context” is the whole tribe. (Not the whole world, as other tribes will be sacrificed as needed.) Without women’s “context,” which is a sub-tribe consisting of My Babies/Me, the tribe would not survive. Likewise, my Babies/Me would not survive without men’s duty to the whole tribe. Women’s morality feels more contextual than men’s because the “them” in Us vs. Them, are people we know personally, and care about when we can afford to. Men’s morality has plenty of “thems” whose welfare doesn’t count. Men’s “thems” are other tribes, strangers. Warriors can’t afford to care about the survival of their enemies.

This is not a justification of immoral behavior. However, in a world where there’s not enough food, how immoral is it for a woman to see her sister’s need for food, as a threat to her own child’s ability to eat? Who would a woman NOT steal from, in order to feed her child? What good is a well-ordered society if individual mothers willingly sacrifice their own children for the greater good? They may be forced to do so, but their maternal/reproductive instincts should scream in protest.

Societies would die out if men refused to see outsiders as the enemy, and individual families would perish. Individual families would die out if women refused to see outsiders as the enemy, and societies would perish. The difference is that for women, “outsiders” can be very very close.

Exactly, AR. There were men who fought feminism from the beginning, but not enough of them to stop it. By the second wave, feminists had enough political capital to keep themselves way out in front. If more men had fought feminism from the beginning, they would have had just as much momentum. If half of the population can manipulate the majority into “doing it my way,” so can the other half. But men didn’t, for many reasons. I suspect in most cases, they didn’t see the potential harm – it seemed like a good idea at the time.
(To clarify, EARLY feminism was grass roots. Even most women didn’t see the need to vote.)

Proscriptions against adultery are not really abstract or arbitrary. Adultery weakens the family unit, and therefore weakens society. There is a concrete, measurable good served by “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The same logic applies to most widely accepted moral codes.

Did all the people who voted for Obama in 2008 intend to force religious charities to pay for employee abortions…The idea that an entire bureaucracy could be created by an executive order, for example, was not exactly heard of…[lobbying] is a full time job for multiple people to keep track of such things.

A good point, my good sir. Yet my response to it lies quite easily in something you yourself said:

The average man and average woman had effectively no voice in this decision.

How can “the average woman” be blamed for something she had no voice in either? Either the “average woman” actually did have a voice in these changes and you misspoke, or she can’t be blamed any more than the “average man” can.

Now, you might say that since women benefit from feminism, they ought to be responsible for it, regardless of whether or not they “had a voice in it.” But plenty of people benefit from plenty of things they had nothing to do with. I’m a non-white man, so I pretty clearly benefit from the Civil Rights Movement. But I was born decades after the Civil Rights Act, and after MLK, Malcolm X, and other civil-rights leaders died in the struggle. Am I “responsible” for these advances? Of course not, I’m simply a free rider benefiting from the sacrifices of those who came before me. By the same token, the average woman, or “women as a class” isn’t “responsible” for feminism even though she benefits from it. She’s simply a free rider enjoying benefits of legislation other people came up with.

I realize it is emotionally satisfying for women, feminists, tradcons, etc. to blame all social ills on men.

It isn’t ’emotionally satisfying,’ in my case, it simply seems to be true–at least if what many MRAs such as Hollenhund, ybm, and others say is correct. If he is correct, and that women are mindless and “basely natural,” they can’t be “blamed” for anything. Would you blame a leech for sucking blood or a hornet for stinging? Of course not, they’re mindless animals incapable of doing anything besides following their instincts. Would you “blame” an earthquake for making a house collapse? Of course not, it’s a force of nature, not a sentient, reasoning being. No, you’d tell the person who got stung he was stupid for stepping onto a beehive, or the builders of a house foolish for not building it more sturdily if they lived near a fault line. By the same token, if the mindless “force of nature” half of the population is causing trouble, the only people who can be blamed are the reasoning, sentient half for letting them get out of control.

@AnnoymousIt is an extension of your “All men are guilty of supporting feminism” notion. That’s why I wrote the words and by extension…. I note that you have not attempted to correct your wrongheaded use of the term NAWALT, will you get around to that soon?

Nope. Since NAWALT is a claim against the idea that women can’t be treated as a class. You are still not seeing it.

Eh, it’s close enough. You may find this “men are to blame for everything bad” notion of yours to be new, and novel, but it isn’t. Feminists and traditionalists have been spouting it for years. It’s part of the “reasoning” behind many bad laws enacted in the last 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 years – every one of which was passed with the support of “conservatives”, social and otherwise. The fact that you’d rather have this argument, than defend your original claim is not surprising, either.

Did I say men are to blame for everything that is bad? I feel like I’m having an argument with a woman where everything is blown way out of proportion.

I suggest you examine your premises. Start with the notion that men are inherently bad while women are inherently good – there’s an idea that doesn’t stand up to the real world. (DId you use a search enging to look up Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates, yet? Do you need any help with that task?)

Again, where are you getting this crap? Can you point to actual words that I, like, said? What is with the ad hominem? I did not say men are inherently bad. I did not say women are inherently good. I never said that. I’m actually fond of Chesterton’s assertion that when we look at the fallen world we see in people good and evil at the same time. I’m not manichaen (you might want to look that up since that’s a bit different from a pop news figure) so I can’t see women or men as evil per se. They are naturally helpers that when taken out of enviornment where they can help go nuts. Men can do the same thing when they stop being active providers. I think they’re different. That difference makes them natural followers.

@Brenden

I suspect that this tendency to favor context and relationship in moral reasoning stems not only from what you have said above (hypergamy and opportunism), but also from the role as primary caregivers/raisers of children, where meting out moral justice to the children is often very contextual and relational rather than simply the enforcement of abstract rules like a court would do

Strongly agree. Very, very, very, very strongly.

@Hurp,

wouldn’t make..

Probably not. First men aren’t universally smarter, on average we’re about the same. However all of the geniuses are ours (our deviation from the mean is higher). And men can be evil. The whole PUA meme is an indication of us liking harems…as long as they are ours. Feminism I think enables PUA behavior.

You’re exactly right–PUAs themselves admit this. Roissy/Heartiste has written before on how “what’s good for the alpha male (i.e me) is not what’s good for society.” PUAs and Gamers are another group of men who ‘benefit’ from feminism. One could argue they’re not “average” men, though. What does that make them, I wonder? Are they traitors and manginas, like the politicians? Plenty in the manosphere (Alek Novy, for instance) argue that they are. Or are they just better than the rest of us? Others in the manosphere, like TFH (80% of men will never “comprehend” game!), argue that they are.

HurpHow can “the average woman” be blamed for something she had no voice in either? Either the “average woman” actually did have a voice in these changes and you misspoke, or she can’t be blamed any more than the “average man” can.

But all women are above average. They are smart, savvy, full of moxie and much more betterer than the knuckle-dragging menz who have oppressed them for, like, ever. Or so I’ve been told for a very, very long time. So if women are as smart as the AAUW insists they are, then they knew what they were doing as they joined the Gramscian march through the institutions. And that’s why we can all celebrate their ascendency in the glorious, new, American republic, right?

If they are as innocent as you claim, then they should not be allowed to vote, own property, or carry sharp objects around with them.

SuzI don’t think Hurp is blaming men for feminism. He’s blaming men AND women.

That’s not how I’m reading it. I’m seeing the usual “Oh, if there is something bad, men did it” routine. I’m seeing the “Oh, teh menz were all in favor of feminism as long as it was about ez sex”.

I read this kind of stuff here, and other places, and then I find myself talking with the trucker I know who is home maybe 1 week out of 4, and I ask myself, “When did Mr. A sign away his rights? When did he sit down and say, ‘men’s fault divorce? Sounds great to me! I know that’s what I want, a wife who can screw me over while I”m out paying her bills”. And I really can’t square the claims made on blogs with the reality that I and other men live in.

then they should not be allowed to vote, own property, or carry sharp objects around with them.

Let’s say I agree with this. I would then proceed to ask, “well, who was dumb enough to give them those rights?” Well, men. As many MRAs will point out, women having rights is the source of all our problems. But, of course, women have no rights except what men give them. If they have the right to vote, own property, and generally cause trouble, it *must* be the fault of men, because the stronger, smarter gender could simply revoke those rights at any time it chooses.

GKChestertonIt is an extension of your “All men are guilty of supporting feminism” notion. That’s why I wrote the words and by extension…. I note that you have not attempted to correct your wrongheaded use of the term NAWALT, will you get around to that soon?

Nope. Since NAWALT is a claim against the idea that women can’t be treated as a class. You are still not seeing it.

You are correct, I’m not seeing it. Please be so kind as to illuminate.

Did I say men are to blame for everything that is bad?

Close enough, with the whole “Men are responsible for feminism” routine. Look, if you are going to hold me responsible for the actions of thousands of people I have no authority over, we need to have a little chat about reality.

iI suggest you examine your premises. Start with the notion that men are inherently bad while women are inherently good – there’s an idea that doesn’t stand up to the real world. (DId you use a search enging to look up Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates, yet? Do you need any help with that task?)

Again, where are you getting this crap? Can you point to actual words that I, like, said? What is with the ad hominem? I did not say men are inherently bad. I did not say women are inherently good. I never said that.

If feminism is a bad thing, and as you claim men are responsible for it, while women are the weak creatures that are only here to help, then ‘men bad women good’ is the logical extension.

I’m actually fond of Chesterton’s assertion that when we look at the fallen world we see in people good and evil at the same time. I’m not manichaen (you might want to look that up since that’s a bit different from a pop news figure) so I can’t see women or men as evil per se.

Ah. So there’s no such thing as evil, if a woman does it? Is that correct?

Again, when are you going to get around to learning about Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates? Are you afraid of what you might find, or just too lazy to learn something that might contradict your ideology?

Pinning blame ain’t difficult for anyone who actually pays attention to how laws get made and how social and economic incentives work. ‘Men’ didn’t allow the feminist takeover; elite men did. And women in general have taken advantage of what was given to them.

Me? I can’t speak for good ol’ GK, but my *sincere* belief, which I personally hold, is that nobody is “responsible” for feminism. It’s the outgrowth of a variety of social and technological changes beyond the ability of any one group (“average” men, “average” women, “elite” men, or whoever) to control. You can’t hold women “responsible” for it or “blame” men for it, the only thing you can say is that the former (generally) benefit from it and the latter (generally) doesn’t. Even that is arguable, depending on who you ask.

Of course, if I believed that women only have rights “at the suffrance” of men, I would have to conclude that men *in general* were responsible for feminism. No, good Anonymous Reader, maybe you personally had always fought the good fight against the evils of women’s rights. That would make you an exception. *In general,* 80% of the Master Gender sat around doing nothing while allowing the elite/mangina gender-traitor/whatever 20% to screw them over.

“Explain how I’m to blame for an ideology I’ve despised and opposed for a generation or more. Why did I do it? How did I do it? When and where did I do it?”

I wonder the same thing, yet I’m a woman. Since I benefit from it, am I to blame for it? No. The bottom line is, we are all to blame. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter. A hundred years ago, a minority of women pushed for equal rights, and men granted them those rights. Since then political and social parasites have deceived us all into tolerating more and more “women’s rights,” by calling them “equality.”

Have you ever noticed that the Socialist Party never gained much public support in this country? Yet how close are we to being a socialist state? We’ve been deceived by more of those social and political parasites; they don’t call it socialism, so we accept it incrementally. *How can we turn our backs on the poor? We’re a wealthy, compassionate and responsible people. It’s not socialism, it’s our duty to the greater good…..*

The Civil Rights movement? Same thing. Somebody’s benefiting from the billions of dollars we’re spending to help the poorest blacks, but that “somebody” doesn’t appear to be the poorest blacks.

EDUCATION. Need I say more?

This is what bureaucracy does – it offers us all these delicious-looking little crumbs in exchange for our votes and our tax dollars, then it uses our productivity to support its network of loyal power brokers.

Feminism has become yet another government boondoggle, and the vast majority of us have no control over it. It’s not natural to women and we didn’t cause it by being inherently weak or evil. It preys on the weaknesses in both genders. I don’t know if it can be ended or even restrained, but I do know that no inroads will be make by holding only women accountable.

Entirely off-topic, and I’m sure you’ve already gotten emails on this, Dalrock, but I though this was worth sharing: AP has now banned the term “illegitimate” from its stylebook. And that loathsome bitch couldn’t be prouder. The article, of course, reads like an uncharitable parody of feminist thoughts on traditional families, and yet here it is, in all its glory.

(To clarify, EARLY feminism was grass roots. Even most women didn’t see the need to vote.)

early feminism, like current incarnations, was NOT grass roots — even in 1848, Seneca Falls was financed and organized by elite females and attlantic seaboard “old money”

feminism in 18th century america (and pre-america) was likewise top-down — abigail adams , for example, was a powerful champion of “womens’ rights” along with fellow matrons

similarly, the New Bedford MA area was a hotbed of feminism, its modern birthplace . . . again, nothing to do with grassroots — it was funded and organized by the extremely wealthy wives of whaling captains and officers (while they were at sea)

the matriarchy has succeeded in painting “womens’ rights” as the result of mass insurgency by lower and middle class females suffering under the jackboot of patriarchal oppression — it’s just another lie

as for women = fairness and men = justice, it’s semantic nonsense . . . pls point out examples of female “fairness” in the gender war on maleness over the past century (take your time)

appeals to evolutionary socio-biology are fruitless, and only muddy the water — the feminine principle = chaos, and i dont need citations, just take a look around you

why do men (but not women) go to ENDLESS lengths to make , say, athletic competition, fair? why the intricate rules?

not to improve wildebeest-hunting on the savannah lol

God breathed his OWN Spirit (righteousness, justice, fairness, honesty, protecton of the weak etc) into the human male, but not into the female, who was created from the pre-existent male — thus those characteristics come to her ONLY secondarily, through the male

as the world falls under satanic influence to progressive degree, it reverses this godly and natural order and elevates the female to lawgiver and judge and moral authority — that’s why the u.s. symbol of “justice” is a woman, and why the idolatrous statues of women stand atop many u.s. courthouses and statehouses, and in front of its most famous city

she is the de facto ruler, and the males are mere frontmen and servants

Rayy,
Good point about female elites funding early feminism, although they were funding a movement that that existed before they were born.

As for the rest, I didn’t say women were “fair.” I said, “If being “fair” means my children eat less so someone else’s children can eat more, well then it sucks to be them.” Women aren’t fair and neither are men. Men PRACTICE fairness to maintain social stability in their own societies. Men are perfectly capable of “unfairness” when dealing with enemies. And athletic opponents ore not enemies, which is precisely why games are structured for fair play. The goal is to defeat your opponent, not to wipe him off the face of the earth. Do you think the Roman gladiators fought fair? I have doubts.

If you think God and Satan are responsible for human nature, that’s your prerogative. Odd coincidence though, that so many human traits which are beneficial to human survival are mirrored in other animals. Some folks might think we evolved that way, with or without God and Satan. Your point of view can be dismissed by anyone who doesn’t believe in your god. Mine can be dismissed only with replicatable evidence or observation. You know, “science.” I’d say, “Welcome to the 21st century,” but since you already have a computer, I suspect you’re familiar with a few of the benefits of the scientific method. Thanks for the pretty myth, though.

Nope. I’m a Christian because I believe that Jesus died for our salvation, but there’s very little else in the Bible that I believe came from God. Faith doesn’t have to be irrational. Some of the most devout Christians I know are in the scientific community.

“I don’t subscribe to the brand of Christianity that says, “With God all thing are possible, except Darwinian evolution and sexual orientation as an inborn trait.”

Gene expression does not work that way. Even Richard Dawkins – that noted God-botherer – criticizes those who claim homosexuality is as simple as “born that way” as missing the point, since the genotypes we have can and will frequently activate and deactivate as we go throughout life as different hormones are released; stress is one of the biggest, if not primary, mover in this regard. Furthermore, a particular sequence might have served a particular function in one environment but thousands of years later, in entirely different environs, triggering that sequence might have a completely different result. If there are genetic origins to homosexuality – and surely everything is, in a very roundabout way, heritable, it can only be so loosely; a predisposition to submission, perhaps, or an inclination for mates with higher testosterone that gets misinterpreted by the rational brain as a desire for same-sex pairings (much like cuckold fetishism arises as a misinterpretation of the arousal generated by the so-called “sperm wars;” men are predisposed to want to mate with a woman who has just had sex with another as a way of competition – after all, the last man to mate with a woman during her peak fertility period is the most likely to be the father, and the evolution of our penis facilitates that)

The big problem though is that the varying theories simply don’t add up, and the most common reason is that theorists are trying to shoehorn in a politically preferred theorem into what we observe, and the flaws are obvious. All of the major theories are completely preoccupied with *male* homosexuality, and the logic falls apart when you try to apply it to lesbians. Additionally, only the “protective uncle” theory truly holds to homosexual exclusivity, and that has significant problems with reproductive success; the more likely a woman is to have homosexual sons, the less likely she is to have grandchildren, unless we’re willing to posit that women can somehow control which egg (and thus, which genes) will be released so that she has the straight sons when she wants them, and that’s patently absurd, not to mention too dangerous during our more primitive development. The other major theorems concern bisexuality or homosexuality as a preference but still possessing a drive to reproduce – which modern homosexuality just doesn’t square with – either as a deceptive tactic (the “sneaky seducer” idea, wherein a less dominant male feigns homosexuality so that the more dominant males drop their guard and the “homosexual” steals opportunities to mate), or as a simple preference that is temporarily abandoned when females are ready to reproduce – which itself should have fallen apart when hidden estrus came about.

“Nope. I’m a Christian because I believe that Jesus died for our salvation, but there’s very little else in the Bible that I believe came from God. Faith doesn’t have to be irrational. Some of the most devout Christians I know are in the scientific community.”

WOW!
Faith…irrational…
The entire Word is inspired by God. I have a 1-year bible that I’ve read since 1981…so yes I’ve read the entire bible 30 times. Every time I pick it up a new truth is revealed. To think it is a scientific text book is absurd, but as a guide to a better, more fulfilled life…ABSOLUTELY!
The archeologists use the bible as a guide for placing their digs…HUMMM!
An army of doubters have started on the road to discredit the bible only to come away rabid believers.
Christianity is the one religion that actively promoted literacy, equal rights, scientific inquiry.
All of the Ivy League colleges here in America started as bible colleges for ministers.
I guess I resent the depiction of Christian believers as hayseed hicks who wear tin foil hats. There is overwhelming historical evidence to support the bible as the inspired word of God. Just the prophesies about Jesus are mathematically off the charts as far as coincidence. How could different people from different eras writing in different languages all reveal the Christ, unless the Word were inspired?
I’m glad you believe the most important tenant of the Christian faith, that Jesus died for our sins, but you are missing out on so much more by your belief that the Bible is just a collection of flawed, cute bedtime stories.
I think the book of Proverbs alone is worth the price of admission. Anyone who reads and follows the advice given there cannot help but to live a wonderful life that is a blessing to all around them!

No, the context isn’t necessarily just the tribes. Male leaders also created rules of interaction between clans, tribes and later countries. Men invented international law, corporate law, the laws of war and so on, all of which are based on moral codes, because they understand that male-male interaction needs to be regulated even at the highest levels. That’s why cooperation always existed between tribes, countries etc., why history isn’t just all-out war.

The difference you don’t seem to understand is that you simply don’t need to have any moral code for childrearing, but you need to have a moral code if you’re a man.

@Suz 2:46 pm

That’s the point. The ban on adultery serves the common good. But the very idea of ’common good’ doesn’t even occur to women.

Hollenhund,
1.Who instills and reinforces a moral code in children?
2.”Common good” does occur to women – a woman’s “community” is her own children. Men’s community is larger, but still finite. Men don’t apply their moral code to their enemies, unless it’s relatively “safe” to do so. Society needs both the fierce protection of the nuclear family AND the fierce protection of the whole community. Women are better at one, men are better at the other. Both are necessary, and neither is more moral that the other.

Buck,
I don’t dismiss the whole Bible, and I believe most of it was inspired by God. However it was recorded by weak mortals, so it can’t be perfect. Even allowing for minor misrepresentations, the teachings of Jesus are very clear. No prophet, No apostle, could truly comprehend the nature and will of God. Jesus does; He IS God. Religious leaders tend to gloss over his message to the Pharisees – that their knowledge of and dedication to the old laws, was NOT the key to salvation. To me Christ’s words ARE the Bible; everything else is secondary. Not worthless, secondary.

nyccine,
I understand that homosexuality is far more complex than DNA. It’s also more complex than a “choice,” or even a conditioned response, which is how most Christians characterize it. Sexuality is deeply ingrained; Homosexuality can’t be overcome any more than can heterosexuality, yet how many straight Christians consider themselves more virtuous than gays?

Their fathers, plus the male figureheads they authorize to train them (teachers, priests etc.). That’s how it traditionally happened.

’2.”Common good” does occur to women – a woman’s “community” is her own children. Men’s community is larger, but still finite.’

Men’s community is the community they organize and lead. Women didn’t do anything similar. The heads of families were men. That’s the difference.

’Men don’t apply their moral code to their enemies, unless it’s relatively “safe” to do so.’

They actually do, because tribes etc. have normally agreed on some common rules. All-out conflict without any rules has been a very rare occurence.

„Society needs both the fierce protection of the nuclear family AND the fierce protection of the whole community. Women are better at one, men are better at the other.”

No. Both were men’s responsibility, as they were normally expected to defend their nuclear family even if it meant their own death. Women didn’t defend their children, they fed and nurtured them in young age. Again, big difference.

2.”Common good” does occur to women – a woman’s “community” is her own children. Men’s community is larger, but still finite. Men don’t apply their moral code to their enemies, unless it’s relatively “safe” to do so. Society needs both the fierce protection of the nuclear family AND the fierce protection of the whole community. Women are better at one, men are better at the other. Both are necessary, and neither is more moral that the other.

But a woman and her children (note, not the father) is not “the nuclear family” in the human context. If one construes the children as mere extensions of their mother, this is really nothing more than selfishness — certainly not “moral”, because morality properly governs the relationships between people with competing interests. Essentially, if women are “morally programmed” to “do the best for themselves and their kids”, that essentially means they have no moral programming, because moral programming is not needed to be self-interested and do the best for oneself, and if one sees one’s kids as an extension of oneself, acting in *their* interests is similarly not “moral” but also just an extension of selfishness.

In addition, men *do* apply a moral code to their enemies. There have been laws of war for a long, long time — the substance of them has changed over the centuries, but their existence isn’t new. There have always been those who have acted outside the law as well, but nevertheless these laws and customs of “how to conduct warfare” were always aimed at how to treat one’s enemies, and were based on moral principles in that specific context.

To me Christ’s words ARE the Bible; everything else is secondary. Not worthless, secondary.

A strange view, really, because the texts of the Gospels are every bit as subject to textual “corruption” as the rest of the Bible is — that is, if the problem with the rest of the Bible is that it was recorded by weak mortals, this also applies directly to the words in the Gospels themselves. Christ wasn’t videotaped, after all.

I think Suz is typical of modern American Christianity. The smorgasbord approach to religion…I’ll take a bit if blessing, seasoned with a pinch of guilt, pass on the adultery, fudge a white lie here and there (forgive me Jesus), a heaping helping of the Baby Jesus…(he’s so cute)…no thanks on the Jesus who took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple ( he’s too judgmental)…skip the admonishments against homosexuality, horoscopes ( just clean fun), tattoos, piercings (they’re hip and cool)…
The point is not that we live a life of following rules like a robot…rather…it’s that we read the word, understand that God is good and follow his rules because we trust that He knows better and wants us to live a fulfilled life. God is not a cosmic kill-joy, He knows the life of hedonistic narcissism harms everyone it interacts with.

“”Common good” does occur to women – a woman’s “community” is her own children. ”
Her immediate community is her family. If she is so into her children because of emotion and attachment that she neglects her role as wife then there is a problem. Women also participate in the community outside of the home, but typically in ways that differ from the socio-political roles of men.

I think that leaves out the critical “we have all the geniuses” part. There are many men who will never amount to much but we have many more men who will crush all female comers.

does that make them, I wonder? Are they traitors and manginas, like the politicians?

I’m not as hard on the politicians. I’ve had command positions at various points in my life and I’ve always been bemused at how limited your choices are. It can, if you have any principles at all, be a very miserable existence.

As to my position, I think patriarchy always and everywhere exists. Feminism just enables a certain type of patriarchy that the PUA’s happen to like. I don’t like it. I wouldn’t call them traitors so much as, “The Enemy’s Minions”.

@Anonymous

Ah. So there’s no such thing as evil, if a woman does it? Is that correct?

Its amazing how you project. Mind boggling really. Again, I’d like to have a quote where I said any of this. Saying men are complicit doesn’t mean that they are solely responsible. Saying men are complicit does not mean women are paragon’s of every virtue. Nor does citing a murderous mom somehow make all of the male ax murders disappear. Nor does citing a trucker (talk about selection bias!) who evidently doesn’t engage the popular culture make your argument valid. I, for example, am not a politician but I do my best to make sure feminism dies in everything I do. Does the trucker?

Including you? All men? Some men?

Men as a class. Just like women as a class can have the traits you assign to them. I’m happy you fight the good fight. You are not the class.

@Unger,

‘Men’ didn’t allow the feminist takeover; elite men did. And women in general have taken advantage of what was given to them.

Of which you are a member. Nor have women reaped any sort of advantage. Studies show that they are more miserable than previously. They are more prone (after divorce) to live in poverty. Their base instincts are promoted, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they have any advantages as a class. They’ve been permitted to act like animals and it isn’t healthy for them.

They’ve been permitted to act like animals and it isn’t healthy for them.

But then the question would be, good Chesterton, why do you care? As the above commentators have demonstrated, women…aren’t even animals, they’re essentially just little bits of pure nothingness–the only things they’ve ever done were incubate embryos and produce milk. Men are the true human beings, who do literally everything (fight, raise children, gather, and so on, and so forth). Your concern for them is evidently misplaced. Why worry about what’s “healthy” for an incubation/lactation machine (which somehow has near-supernatural powers of manipulation, apparently)?

GKChesterton
I wroteAh. So there’s no such thing as evil, if a woman does it? Is that correct?

Its amazing how you project. Mind boggling really. Again, I’d like to have a quote where I said any of this.

I just asked a question. It is clear that you don’t like being questioned, but that is not my problem.

Saying men are complicit doesn’t mean that they are solely responsible. Saying men are complicit does not mean women are paragon’s of every virtue.

But saying men are complicit does spread the blame around. Which makes it just that much more difficult to actually question and challenge feminism, because if something is “everyone’s fault” then in actuality, it is “no one’s fault”, and therefore political ideologies that demonize and harm men become, eh, just a natural phenomenon to be endured, like an earthquake, tornado, tsunami, etc. However, the reality is that Marxism in all its forms is an anti-human ideology that spawns political policies that harm people. You remind me of some people I knew back during the 1980’s, who responded to Soviet aggression of various forms with a kind of “well, every country does it … it’s not like they are any worse than we are” approach. That kind of mindset may have prolonged the Cold war, and certainly didn’t do anything to defeat tyranny.

Nor does citing a murderous mom somehow make all of the male ax murders disappear.

Let me see, which fallacy is that? is it the strawman argument? Why, so it is. Thanks for the logical fallacy. Much appreciated. The point of citing women such as Yates is to make crystal clear that women can do evil. They can be evil people. It tends to flush out the white knights, those who are always ready to defend women no matter what.

Nor does citing a trucker (talk about selection bias!) who evidently doesn’t engage the popular culture make your argument valid. I, for example, am not a politician but I do my best to make sure feminism dies in everything I do. Does the trucker?

Including you? All men? Some men?

Men as a class. Just like women as a class can have the traits you assign to them. I’m happy you fight the good fight. You are not the class.

I note that you cannot seem to bring yourself to actually express any sort of disapproval, not even a little pursed-lip moue. Come now, the challenge was for you to actually write something about Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler. Can you do it? I do not think so. Why does it mater? Because if a white knight cannot bring himself to actually criticize a woman who takes the life of one or more family members violently, he sure as heck is going to be unable to say any critical thing of women as individuals or as a group on any lesser action. And that in turn means he just cannot face the truth about women.

A man who can’t face the truth about women can not ever oppose feminism in any meaningful way.

Nor does citing a trucker (talk about selection bias!) who evidently doesn’t engage the popular culture make your argument valid. I, for example, am not a politician but I do my best to make sure feminism dies in everything I do. Does the trucker?

It was an example to explain to you how your “all men are guilty of the support of feminism” is nonsense. Perhaps you have never worked in a job where 40 hours of work was “slack time”, 50+ hours was “normal” and 60+ was not unusual? Men in such situations generally are not going to have the time to go to some political hearing in a state capitol and cool their heels for several hours in order to stand up and speak for 5 minutes at the end of a day of hearings…to pick but one example.

Including you? All men? Some men?

Men as a class. Just like women as a class can have the traits you assign to them. I’m happy you fight the good fight. You are not the class.

You have failed to define class. You also have failed to ever get back to defining NAWALT and how it “explains” that feminism is the fault of all , every single solitary, man. Perhaps some time you could actually respoind to the points asked of you, rather than what you want ?

No, Buck, I’m the most non-typical Christian I know. I’m more “fundamental” than the “fundies.” Their foundation is the Bible; mine is Christ. How did the early Christians honor Jesus before they had a Bible and a central church to tell them what to believe? The were “Christians,” not Jews, because they believed what Christ told them. They left Judaism behind. That’s what I believe. What prophet, what apostle, what pope, can tell me more about God’s nature and Gods’s will, than God Himself, in flesh and blood.
Know how that translates into real life? It’s awesome. When Christians tell me who God hates, I don’t have to believe them. When a minister preaches Leviticus, I remind them of what Jesus said to the pharisees. In other words, when my conscience questions modern Christian “teachings,” I refer to the words of Christ. The REAL point is that I obey Jesus, not the prophets. No tats, no lies, no adultery, no horoscopes, for “Biblical” excuse for judging people based on what they are, rather than what they do and say. I only wish he had been as harsh with the pharisees as he was with the money lenders.

If I didn’t believe in Christ, I would be a rationally ethical atheist. But I can be a rationally ethical Christian, and I’m all done apologizing to hypocrites for it.

And Brendan, “A strange view, really, because the texts of the Gospels are every bit as subject to textual “corruption” as the rest of the Bible is — that is, if the problem with the rest of the Bible is that it was recorded by weak mortals, this also applies directly to the words in the Gospels themselves. Christ wasn’t videotaped, after all.”

But the slightly corrupted words spoken by prophets and apostles my reasonably be seen as less reliable than the slightly corrupted of our Savior, especially if the words are about God.

GKC: Considering how much G.K. Chesterton wrote about elites, nobody calling himself G.K. Chesterton has any excuse for not knowing perfectly well what ‘elite’ means in this context, and being pretty certain that semi-anonymous commenters on blogs are not members thereof.

As for advantage: that’s all I meant by ‘taken advantage of what was given to them’. The laws permit them to escape the most immediate and severe consequences of indulging their base instincts, and so those instincts are indulged more commonly, and to a greater degree, than they otherwise would be. I need not express an opinion either way on the question of whether women are naturally more or less moral on the whole than men; it is enough to note that present circumstances, to which only a tiny number of men ever agreed, or had any practical opportunity to sway, are such that a particular moral weakness inherent to women, one which, when indulged, has particularly corrosive effects on society, is free of the societal checks it once had. Since moral weakness does not excuse moral failure, women deserve blame to the extent they indulge their base instincts. I leave it to you to figure the proportion of women who do not do so. Non-elite men, I suppose, deserve blame for not decorating lampposts with politicians, judges, lawyers, and billionaire ‘philanthropists’, but the sort of blame we deserve is different from the sort of blame women deserve, for a very important reason: no one man, no matter how strongly determined he is, can stop the machinery of state, but every woman can freely choose not to be a bitch, not to be a whore, not to be an oathbreaker or homewrecker, etc., etc.

“I think Suz is typical of modern American Christianity. The smorgasbord approach to religion…I’ll take a bit if blessing, seasoned with a pinch of guilt, pass on the adultery, fudge a white lie here and there (forgive me Jesus), a heaping helping of the Baby Jesus…(he’s so cute)…no thanks on the Jesus who took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple ( he’s too judgmental)…skip the admonishments against homosexuality, horoscopes ( just clean fun), tattoos, piercings (they’re hip and cool)…”

Dalmatian theology. The Bible is only inspired in spots, and only certain people are able to spot the spots.

pb says it well:
“Her immediate community is her family. If she is so into her children because of emotion and attachment that she neglects her role as wife then there is a problem. This only becomes a problem in times of relative plenty. Bigger civilizations provide that “plenty.” In small primitive groups, this wouldn’t happen, because women are constantly aware of the need to be devoted to their husbands. Retaliation would be costly. But the devotion to her children is absolutely necessary to their survival.

Early men didn’t have the luxury of following women and children around while they gathered food all day and did “homemaking” tasks. Men would also leave their families while they hunted or fought – women protected their own children much of the time. Before complex societies, there were no spare men to “tutor” young children; older children learned from men when they were old enough to follow them around. Until then, children were (and are) learning from their mothers every waking minute, whether the mothers knew they were teaching or not.

“Essentially, if women are “morally programmed” to “do the best for themselves and their kids”, that essentially means they have no moral programming.” I disagree with this, because a woman will sacrifice herself for her child, so she’s not quite #1, more like 1 1/2. This brand of “selfishness” takes up the slack for men. While men protect the whole community, women protect their individual children. If the men are fighting invaders, and a few get through to the women and children, every mother will let her own sisters (along with her nieces and nephews) die, if that might save HER child. Women’s “micro-morality” and men’s “macro-morality” complement each other to make stronger communities, because the children of the “strongest” men and women survive. If women were essentially amoral, we humans would likely be extinct.

Also, Brendan, I’m glad you pointed out the rules of war. Formal rules of war are probably as old as civilization, but the instinct to fight is much older, so I suspect there was a time when there was enough “honor” in killing one’s enemies, with or without formal rules. Additionally, moral men fight honorably but they still kill their enemies and take their enemies’ property. This is not something they do to members of their own community.

It’s not considered immoral to destroy a tribe that’s competing with yours for resources, or to take their women, children, and food, so your tribe can survive. So is it immoral to let your best friend’s child be killed by a tiger, while you take your child and run for safety?
Some must be sacrificed for others to survive. We all protect our own community; the only difference between men and women, is the size of the community.

bp, women do cooperate with each other out in the community, when they have resources to spare or trade – surplus. Just like men make the rules deciding how much surplus will be shared with the elderly and disabled. If there is no surplus, the weak are left behind.

Instinct, which is has logical, measurable benefits, is probably amoral at worst. It ma even be the basis of our morality. How would humans have survived to create civilizations if some instinctive behaviors are inherently moral, and some are inherently immoral? “Abstract” or arbitrary morality (as opposed to rational morality) is a luxury of civilization, because without civilization, it would likely fail to keep us alive.

Men in such situations generally are not going to have the time to go to some political hearing in a state capitol and cool their heels for several hours in order to stand up and speak for 5 minutes at the end of a day of hearings…to pick but one example.

Correct, but even the busiest men can cast a ballot a year. Even if you work 13 hours a day (79 a week, no weekends off) and have to sleep for another 8, you still have 3 hours out of 24 for some political action–and even a minimum would be all that’s required to roll back feminism to a significant degree. A man working 79 hours a week in 1920 would have still been able to cast a ballot against representatives expressing support for women’s suffrage; a man working 79 hours a week today can still find the time to vote against Obama (or for Ron Paul, or however True Men ought to vote). Even if you’re too busy to spend 10000000 hours in front of congressional representatives, you can still try to vote for MRA-approved politicians who aren’t democratic manginas or Republican white knights. The fact that so many men still seem to be unable to do so doesn’t speak well of them.

(and yes, before you ask, I think Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler are evil bitches who should have had the book thrown at them. Let’s say I also think women in general are inherently evil and stupid and should have no rights at all. Thus, I would *still* have to be angry and condemnatory of my fellow men for not doing more to put the worthless animal whores in their place. What else do you want?)

So one more time: did the tens of thousands of Catholics who voted for Obama for President do so because they really, really wanted Catholic institutions to be forced to pay for employee abortions? Did the people who voted for Obama for hope and change reallly, really want to make it even easier for college women to hit college men with false charges of sexual assault? Or did these people vote for a package deal, and get surprised by some of the results.

I’m pretty sure that the truck driver I know did not vote for Obama. He voted against feminism. And so what? Voting for or against any particular candidate does have some effect, but only marginally. Law since the 1930’s has been made in the US by bureaus and agencies, not by elected officials. Congress all too often passes some shell of legislation and allows the executive branch to fill it in – Obama’s health bill is exactly that kind of law. It is a blank check, essentially, that the rest of us get to cash.

The HHS rule making is a perfect, outstanding example of feminism at work. Ditto for the “preponderance of evidence” standard that the Dept. of Education is imposing upon higher education in he said / she said sex cases. The rule is promulgated, time for comments is given, all protests are ignored, and if there’s a group with enough money to take the case to court, it goes there. Where it may or may not be upheld. But for sure, there are not a whole lot of ordinary men on the Federal court bench. So I’m at a loss how the ordinary man is supposed to roll back bad laws all by himself, or even by voting for that matter.

To be charitable, I do not think you understand the process by which law is made in the US, but I could be wrong.

(and yes, before you ask, I think Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler are evil bitches who should have had the book thrown at them.

Why should they have the book thrown at them? What is your reasoning?

Let’s say I also think women in general are inherently evil and stupid and should have no rights at all. Thus, I would *still* have to be angry and condemnatory of my fellow men for not doing more to put the worthless animal whores in their place. What else do you want?)

Well, I could want some logic and reason, rather than the false dichotomy fallacy. Is that too much to ask?

I’ve been following your conversation and I just thought i’d toss out a couple of observations. Make of them what you will.

Have you considered that you hold a deeply sub christian view of Jesus, that your reason for why the bible is corrupted isn’t logical and that you have the same basic approach to the bible as the loonies over at Westboro Baptist do?

I will elaborate on each of those.

1. If Jesus is God, which you did say you subscribed too, then that Jesus is the same God who authored the OT text that you seem happy to discard. I agree it must be read in context but you cannot simpy discard it is irrelevant and not “from Jesus” unless you deny that they are the same person.

2. It doesn’t logically follow from the observation that some men make mistakes when they are writing therefore the bible must be fallible as a result. Unless you are claim men _always_ and _inevitably_ make mistakes when writing. And the idea of the inspiration of the text should at least give you pause in that regard to simply declare parts in error or unreliable. The science of textual criticism shows that the original autographs can be rightly reconstructed to a very high degree of accuracy, so any “faults” must be in those and your reasoning for that being the case seems insufficent currently.

3. If you doubt that you have the same basic approach to Westboro baptist (if you dont know who they are, they are the “classy” group who run godhatesfags.com and like to picket soldiers funerals etc). They claim to preach a biblical message but all they do is pick and choose the verses they like and discard all the verses that disagree with what they want to do. You are doing the same thing it seems. You choose a different set of verses to keep and discard, but the basic approach is identical. I would note that all christians are guilty of this behavior to varying degrees, we all have verses we dont like and verses we do, and ignore some for others at times. The difference is that you seem to regard such behavior as a feature where as most christians see it as a bug in their theology.

They claim to preach a biblical message but all they do is pick and choose the verses they like and discard all the verses that disagree with what they want to do.

This is “cut and paste” Christianity. Most American Churchianity is guilty of that. The more feminized a congregation, the more guilty.

I disagree with this, because a woman will sacrifice herself for her child, so she’s not quite #1, more like 1 1/2. This brand of “selfishness” takes up the slack for men. While men protect the whole community, women protect their individual children.

A really weak “argument” that doesn’t affect Brendan’s argument at all. If a woman is wired to sacrifice herself for her child, there is no morality: only human biology.

About women picking the slack and yaddah, yaddah…Suz confuses morality with strategy for protection. Suz doesn’t seem to know what morality is.

Jason,
Interesting points. First, I choose to believe that God exists, rather than that He doesn’t, because I “feel” it. Since there’s no proof either way, neither choice is irrational. I believe that Christ was a real man who was also “divine,” in that he comprehended the incomprehensible, and tried to teach it to the rest of us. He gave his life to give us salvation. If I didn’t believe in God’s divinity, I’d be an atheist. If I didn’t believe in Christ’s divinity, I’d be agnostic, because I believe that no person (except Christ) can understand the nature of divinity. If we could, it wouldn’t be divine. I see no reason to try to define God.

Secondly, you suggest that perhaps I accept some of God’s Word, while rejecting the rest of it. That is based on your belief that the Bible IS God’s Word. Your assumption that I share that belief is the only flaw in you logic (otherwise, you’d certainly have exposed me as a hypocrite.) I don’t believe God “authorized” the Bible. I believe the Bible is a collection of texts detailing the history of the Jewish, then Christian, people. Had those texts been produced in a secular society, they would have been secular in nature. I’m willing to give a contemporary account of Christ’s words, the same credence I’d give a contemporary account of Caesar’s words. I consider the Bible a great book, but not a holy book. Is it fallible? To me, yes. But I suspect its a reasonably accurate, if primitive, account of many events. Or at least a good account of someone’s perceptions of those events.

Since I don’t consider the Bible the word of God, I don’t “preach” it as such, so I don’t legalize it. In fact, I don’t preach it at all. I read what Christ is reported to have said, and his message doesn’t appear (to me) to violate any rational code of morality. That and my chosen belief in his divinity, are why I “follow” Him. I don’t, however, arbitrarily follow his human predecessors or his other followers. I don’t believe in God-as-the-Bible-describes-Him, simply because “it’s the Bible and the Bible is holy.” I just believe in God. And I believe Jesus died for my salvation.

I’m a Christian, but I have very little in common with most modern Christians. I suspect early Christians didn’t have much in common with them either.

Actually, “picking up the slack” for men is a pretty good way to describe the role of the woman, just as “picking up the slack” for women is a good way to describe the role of the man. We each do what the other doesn’t. The sexes complement each other, being designed to cooperate in the continuation of our species. Wow. who’da thunk it?

These people vote for a package deal, and get surprised by some of the results…Voting for or against any particular candidate does have some effect, but only marginally.

Well, okay. I can concede that voting alone isn’t enough to effect significant social change. The problem is, looking at the historical record (after the 1930s, I mean), there have been examples of “ordinary people” forcing the government to make big changes. The Civil Rights Movement comes to mind–everybody in the Million Man March and the Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn’t a member of “The Talented Tenth” or a paid activist. Many were ordinary blue-collar black guys not too different from your trucker except for the color of their skin (and if he’s black, not even that). I’m not sure how many of them were truckers, but there were garbagemen, mechanics, laborers, and other sorts of men from all across the spectrum of “ordinary,” at least as it existed for African-Americans in the mid-twentieth century. Despite being busy, when all those men felt they were being crushed by an oppressive government, they did something to make it listen to them–and the government, despite being as slow, ponderous, and inefficient as you (correctly) characterize it as, eventually capitulated.

If men really are as oppressed by feminism as you state, well, it’s incumbent on them to make sacrifices of some sort to see the horrendous legal regime come to an end. Voting doesn’t work? Okay. But voting (in and of itself) didn’t work for blacks earlier in our nation’s history either. They felt oppressed, so they did more than vote, they went on strike, they marched, and they protested, even the men among them who were busy and worked long hours for little pay. And blacks aren’t even 50% of the population, remember. No matter how resistant the government is to the voice of the “ordinary guy,” even if laws are drawn up these days more by committee than by the electorate, it beggars belief that 50% of the population would be unable to achieve what less than 20% did in the past, even if that 50% is overworked and hassled. Plenty of strikers and marchers in the 60s were overworked and put-upon, but they still persevered.

Why would Winkler and Yates deserve to have the book thrown at them?

If you ask me, it’s because they were adults who should have known better. Here’s the thing. Like Dalrock insinuates above, women are, broadly speaking, less rational than men. I can accept that. But what many MRAs–and for what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re one of them–seem to think is that women are not rational *at all.* This strikes me to be as much of a false dichotomy as any. Yes, women in general may be more emotional and less rational than men, but that doesn’t mean they’re completely irrational, or only as rational as children. Under my view, at least, one can look at Ms. Winkler and Ms. Yates and say, “yes, women might be less rational than men on average, but you two are on a whole ‘nother level. There are plenty of women who’ve somehow managed to not kill their husbands and kids. If they can hold themselves to that low, baseline standard, you ought to have been able to as well.”

Hopefully that line of reasoning isn’t entirely illogical, but if it is, I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing whether or not it’s at least close to the mark.

Well, I could want some logic and reason, rather than the false dichotomy fallacy. Is that too much to ask?

Oh no, not too much at all. But humor me for a moment. I gave you my own, sincere position earlier on in the thread (4:34 PM), so I don’t think you’ll mind if I make a request to you. What I described above is a false dichotomy–fair enough. Thus, I would ask you what *you* think is the logical and reasonable framing of the scenario we’re (ostensibly) in. Just give me a little something to work with and then I can respond to it, which you’ll hopefully find

“I choose to believe that God exists, rather than that He doesn’t, because I “feel” it. Since there’s no proof either way, neither choice is irrational.”

That really doesn’t make much sense. If there is no proof that something exists, then the correct position is either (a) it doesn’t exist, or (b) it might possibly exist, but we haven’t exhausted the places where it might be in looking for it, our means of detecting its existence are not yet sophisticated enough, or something along those lines. To believe that something exists for which there is no proof, and merely because one “feels” that it exists, is pretty much the definition of irrationality.

“I’m willing to give a contemporary account of Christ’s words, the same credence I’d give a contemporary account of Caesar’s words”.

The difference being that contemporary accounts of Ceasar, or, at least the parts that people today, including you, are likely to believe, require no particular leap of faith. Ceasar was a military/political leader whose deeds were recorded by numerous, named authors. And by words that he himself wrote. Moreover, his deeds are confirmed by physical evidence (coins, inscriptions, the like). The “contemporary” accounts of Christ are actually not so contemporary. Moreover, they include accounts of incidents that defy conventional reality. Essentially anonymous accounts of wondrous deeds, produced after the fact by folks promoting the religion allegedly founded by the guy who performed the wondrous deeds, are not quite the same thing as historical or poltical accounts of a man who was enormously famous in his own time, whose deeds were a matter of public record, and who was never credited with turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, himself arising from the dead, feeding thousands of people with a few scraps of food, etc.

In short, you have no more reason to believe in the accuracy of the New Testament than you do of the Old. And, with that, goes any rational basis for your supposed belief that Jesus died for “our salvation” or that he knew the “identity of God” and so on. As for the morality of what Jesus supposedly said, that could be said about a lot of folks, like Rabbi Hillel or the Buddha and so forth, and yet you don’t see them as divine. Good morality is one thing, divinity another. Even if we grant (and, by the way, I wouldn’t) that everything Jesus supposedly said is moral, that would hardly make him divine.

“I’m a Christian, but I have very little in common with most modern Christians. I suspect early Christians didn’t have much in common with them either.”

The old “early Christian” claim. Since we really don’t know all that much about what the early Christians believed, heterodox Christians like yourself are always free to speculate that their views mirrored their own.

Basically, your Christianity is about as superficial and meaningless as it could be. You believe in Jesus cuz you agree with him about certain moral issues. From that, you kid yourself that the accounts of his life are somehow more accurate than the Old Testament texts which you don’t agree with. That, and your “feelings” give you a fake religous veneer for what is in fact your own moral code. Nothing wrong with having an idiosyncratic, unconventional moral code. Nor one divorced from what any organized religion might have to say Nor separate from revealed religion entirely.. But why the figleaf?

It’s possible she’s a “atheist Christian,” i.e an atheist who still tries to live up to Jesus’ teachings (Richard Dawkins himself is an “atheist for jesus,” I dont have the article on me right now but just look up “atheists for jesus” dawkins on google), but judging what she said about ‘divinity’ I’m not sure she’s actually an atheist. However, I may be misinterpreting what she meant.

If “it might possibly exist,” then it is not irrational to choose to believe it does exist. There are three choices, yes, no, and maybe. I I choose “yes” because there is evidence of “something not physically explainable” in this world, and I feel connected to that. The “evidence” may someday be explained, or it may actually be divinity. the “feeling” is totally subjective. Most believers “feel” the same thing; it doesn’t make the choice to believe, irrational.
—
“The “contemporary” accounts of Christ are actually not so contemporary. Moreover, they include accounts of incidents that defy conventional reality. Essentially anonymous accounts of wondrous deeds…”
“Or at least a good account of someone’s perceptions of those events.”
(I’ll grant that Jesus didn’t write down his speeches.)
—
“Since we really don’t know all that much about what the early Christians believed, heterodox Christians like yourself are always free to speculate that their views mirrored their own.”

What we do know about them is that they were not under the influence of 2000 years of Church rule, their texts were not yet limited/edited/compiled by the Nicene Council.

—
“Basically, your Christianity is about as superficial and meaningless as it could be.”

Not quite, Christianity’s meaning to me is very different from its meaning to most Christians, but it has great meaning to me. I believe in Jesus ‘cuz’ I think he was divine, not because someone told me he was. I also believe Jesus was executed for his radical teachings. And I may well be mistaken about others. As I know next to nothing about “Rabbi Hillel or the Buddha and so forth, ” they could be divine as well. Maybe Jesus isn’t the only one who died to give us divinity. But I believe he did.
—
“From that, you kid yourself that the accounts of his life are somehow more accurate than the Old Testament texts which you don’t agree with.”

Not at all. I’m sure they’re as imbued with myth as the OT. However, I believe his TEACHINGS were fairly accurately reported, which would certainly explain his execution.
—

“a fake religous veneer for what is in fact your own moral code.”

It’s not fake, but it’s only marginally “religious.” The fact that I am a Christian is merely a technicality – some of my beliefs fit the official definition. I do have an idiosyncratic moral code, based on a strong conscience and logical consequences. My belief in Christ isn’t the cause of my morality, but it parallels my morality. Like I said, if I didn’t believe in Christ, I’d be agnostic, but to call myself agnostic would be dishonest. Fig leaf? Some days I’d rather be naked, but I can’t seem to shake the damn thing off. I’ve mentioned before I’m a bit of an odd bird.

If “it might possibly exist,” then it is not irrational to choose to believe it does exist.

Yes it is. There might possibly exist life on one of the newly discovered Earth-like planets (it’s all over the news). If I said to a scientist, “yes, there’s definitely life on this planet right here!” he’d laugh at me and call me irrational.

There are three choices, yes, no, and maybe.

“Yes” is an irrational choice not based on solid evidence. It’s the definition of irrational to base beliefs on subjective feelings rather than facts–you are ironically demonstrating a picture-perfect example of female irrationality. Now, “No” is also irrational (absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence). The most rational answer is “maybe”–maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t. This is the position many if not most agnostics take, and I’ve generally found agnostics to be remarkably pleasant people (with exceptions, of course). Wait…

ike I said, if I didn’t believe in Christ, I’d be agnostic, but to call myself agnostic would be dishonest.

Wait, how would this be dishonest? Why not just call yourself an agnostic Christian? Hell, if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to describe myself one way or the other, “agnostic Christian” would be my first choice. It’s fine to say you follow Christ’s teachings even if you’re not sure whether or not he was divine/his God exists.

Hurp, I would love to be an “atheist for Jesus.” I tried. Can’t deny my faith.

Speaking of faith, Right before I hit “publish,” I just learned that my 51 year old brother-in-law has been diagnosed with a large brain tumor. Prayers would be welcome. I may not be hangin’ out here in cyberspace for a while.

HurpWell, okay. I can concede that voting alone isn’t enough to effect significant social change.

Thanks. I’m glad we can agree about something.

The problem is, looking at the historical record (after the 1930s, I mean), there have been examples of “ordinary people” forcing the government to make big changes. The Civil Rights Movement comes to mind–everybody in the Million Man March and the Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn’t a member of “The Talented Tenth” or a paid activist.

Question: did the intelligentsia of those days spend a lot of time blaming black people for the Jim Crow laws and segregation? Were there people telling black people “well, ok, Jim Crow is unfair, but you people share some of the blame”, and if they did would anyone have found that convincing? Weren’t the Jim Crow laws enacted over the opposition of black people, just as the black codes of the 19th century were? So where do you get the right to proclaim that all men alive now are somehow to blame for VAWA, for Bradley, for “men’s fault” divorce, for family court?

Many were ordinary blue-collar black guys not too different from your trucker except for the color of their skin (and if he’s black, not even that). I’m not sure how many of them were truckers, but there were garbagemen, mechanics, laborers, and other sorts of men from all across the spectrum of “ordinary,” at least as it existed for African-Americans in the mid-twentieth century. Despite being busy, when all those men felt they were being crushed by an oppressive government, they did something to make it listen to them–and the government, despite being as slow, ponderous, and inefficient as you (correctly) characterize it as, eventually capitulated.

And they had not only a national organization, the NAACP, backing them up with lawyers ready to roll into court, but some degree of support from well financed elites. While the local law enforcers were against them, the FBI was not. While the Montgomery newspapers were critical, the NY Times was not. Now contrast that with Fathers For Justice – you did hear about their protest in Washington, DC a while back, didn’t you? No, you probably did not. Because it was downplayed by the media to the point of nothingness. Ditto the fact that the DC SWAT team surrounded them and took them into custody (don’t try to have a protest anywhere near one of the monuments on the Mall – it’s apparently not legal). When Rosa Parks decided not to sit in the back of the bus, the NAACP was ready to go to court, ready to bail her out of jail, ready for all sort of eventualities and they could count on the FBI to help out. There’s no comparable organization for men. Forming one would all but certainly get it accused of being a “hate group”. Because while racism is no longer acceptable in the US, misandry is not only acceptable, it’s becoming mandatory.

Winkler and Yates

If you ask me, it’s because they were adults who should have known better.

I agree, but there’s a deeper point here. A man who did to his wife what Mary Winkler did to her husband would have gone to prison for a long time. Whining about things that she made him do would have cut no ice in court. Probation would be out of the question. And he sure as heck would not have been a featured interview on Oprah. And I am quite certain he would not have been given custody of the children. So we see that there is a huge disparity between the justice that applies to murderers and that applied to murderesses. Yet time after time, I can’t get socons/tradcons to see this. They can’t even bring themselves to say Winkler belongs in prison. They can’t see how she literally got away with murder. Because by and large, they buy her defense, the “oh, poor widdle me, my husband made me wear a wig during sex I was so degraded, I just don’t remember that shotgun going off…”.

I don’t know if the article on Yates is still on the servers of the Houston Chronicle. The thing that struck me at the time was the large number of both feminists and “conservatives” who showed up in the comments basically defending her actions on the basis that somehow, some way, her actions were really the fault of her husband. I found that sickening, and disgusting, and still do. I think she got off lightly in her punishment, frankly.

But as I pointed out to GKChesterton, or perhaps it’s Escoffier under a new name, if someone can’t bring themselves to say that a woman who commits murder is wrong, there is zero chance of criticizing lesser things such as cuckolding, divorce theft, and so forth. So these two women are a kind of litmus test.

Here’s the thing. Like Dalrock insinuates above, women are, broadly speaking, less rational than men. I can accept that. But what many MRAs–and for what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re one of them–seem to think is that women are not rational *at all.* This strikes me to be as much of a false dichotomy as any.

Well, logically you are correct. However, after seeing “strong, independent women” demanding to be protected and sheltered from any negative outcome off their own decisions a few hundred times, I can understand how some men would throw up their hands and decide that women simply aren’t rational, they are just rationalizing. I don’t agree with them, but I understand how they get there.

Yes, women in general may be more emotional and less rational than men, but that doesn’t mean they’re completely irrational, or only as rational as children. Under my view, at least, one can look at Ms. Winkler and Ms. Yates and say, “yes, women might be less rational than men on average, but you two are on a whole ‘nother level. There are plenty of women who’ve somehow managed to not kill their husbands and kids. If they can hold themselves to that low, baseline standard, you ought to have been able to as well.”

I’ll agree with this. But you’d be amazed how many people, especially white knighting men, are all too willing to pull out the “yes, but…” routine when this point is reached. I frankly think it is due to their pedestalizing of women – they just can’t believe, deep down inside, that a woman would do such a thing. it must be some man’s fault, some how.

Hopefully that line of reasoning isn’t entirely illogical, but if it is, I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing whether or not it’s at least close to the mark.

It works for me. Thanks for taking the time. My apologies for not reading your earlier posting more closely. I’m afraid I assumed some things that were incorrect.

Well then, I’m sorry, but you’re irrational. If I were to tell a scientist, “I am sure, I believe that life exists on this planet we discovered right here” he’d laugh at me. “That’s irrational,” he’d say, “there might be, there might not be. We can’t be sure unless we check, and we can’t right now.” If I tell him, “Well, I believe because of a subjective feeling,” he’d laugh and say, “that’s irrational. You can’t base beliefs on subjective feelings.”

Again, this is almost a textbook example of female irrationality. If you can just admit it, though, that would be to your credit. It’s more than Susan Walsh did, IIRC.

What if you said, “yes, I believe there’s definitely life on this planet right here! and maybe we’ll find evidence of it.” Not that evidence is necessary to faith, as faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. Great discussion, I love rational thinkers, but I gotta go.

“You can’t base beliefs on subjective feelings.” That’s what faith is. Just because I believe it doesn’t mean it’s objectively true. If that’s the standard, all faith is irrational. Was Louis Pasteur irrational before he became famous? Of course not. That’s kind of a silly question, but seriously, in an area where there can be no proof either way, is it irrational to believe one way or another? Am I asking for leeway in logic? Is it rational to believe in the unproven as long as you’re trying to prove it?

FWIW, Hurp, I’m not saying that it’s impossible to effect changes, but let’s understand that the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s took some years to build and organize up, and it did have support from people who weren’t black. Men don’t even agree that their situation is all that bad – it’s easy to find a social / traditional conservative who will dismiss any and all protests about family court, divorce theft, false rape accusations, etc. as “bitterness” or “whining”. There’s not that much agreement or awareness on the issues in the larger world. Feminism has been bankrolled from the start by some large organizations, men are on their own. Etc., etc., etc.

Frankly, I’m not sure that drawing parallels between the black civil rights movement and anything that might help men is all that useful, for historical and cultural reasons. Because there are very successful men – and will be for some time to come. The apex fallacy will always be available to those who wish to minimize misandry, for example.

I don’t agree with your somewhat mechanistic explanation for feminism – technology (small electric motors for the kitchen, for example) played a role, but so did ideology. The Marxist oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is clearly in 20th century feminism, and I’ll argue it can be found in 19th century feminism as well. Wealthy individuals with an agenda can clearly be found in the history. Ideologues with an agenda likewise. The Gramsci approach to “marching through the institutions” clearly has happened, and institutionalized misandry is only one result. Individuals matter (which refutes one tenet of Marxism-Leninism btw) for good and ill.

My apologies for not reading your earlier posting more closely. I’m afraid I assumed some things that were incorrect.

Apology happily accepted, and I should apologize too–I was getting irritated and thus got more snarky and sarcastic than I should have. I do think some of the points I raised earlier deserve a bit more consideration, though you have raised legitimate responses to them. Let’s see if I can show you.

did the intelligentsia of those days spend a lot of time blaming black people for the Jim Crow laws and segregation? Were there people telling black people “well, ok, Jim Crow is unfair, but you people share some of the blame”

Forgive my bluntness, but the white intelligentsia? Certainly. You ever heard of Ulrich B. Philips? He was one of the most influential American historians before the mid 1960s, and he literally claimed (right in his magnum opus, American Negro Slavery) that slavery was a means of “civilizing a savage people.” And that’s just one example–you can find tons of “elites,” politicians, and whoever claiming black people deserved to be oppressed. The modern day ‘alt-right,’ including folks like the WNs you’ve probably seen elsewhere in the manosphere, are their descendants.

Now, the black intelligentsia? Maybe not, though be careful of who you ask–some blacks would call Booker T. Washington an “Uncle Tom,” for instance. But this brings me to our next point…

Weren’t the Jim Crow laws enacted over the opposition of black people, just as the black codes of the 19th century were?

Yep.

So where do you get the right to proclaim that all men alive now are somehow to blame for VAWA, for Bradley, for “men’s fault” divorce, for family court?

Well, again, read what I said above–I don’t think either men or women are “to blame.” But here’s the problem if you happen to be Empathologicalism or Hollenhund (the former was who I was originally responding to). Black people were a minority within the United States (and for the purposes of argument, let’s assume racial differences are minimal and neither blacks nor whites are “superior” to the other–I actually sort of like WNs and other alt-righters, but I ain’t one of em). No matter how much you protest, if you’re outnumbered and outgunned 4 to 1, you’re gonna get oppressed, no matter what you do.

The same doesn’t apply to men. We’re not 20% of the population, we’re 50%. Not only that, but if much MRA dogma is to be believed, we are hands down superior in every respect. We’re smarter, more logical, and obviously stronger.

So it’s one thing to say that 20% of the population was oppressed by the other 80%, especially when there are (for the purposes of argument) no differences between them aside from skin. It’s another thing to say that 50% of the population–the stronger, smarter 50%–is being oppressed by the other 50%. It’s much easier to believe the former proposition than the latter for hopefully obvious reasons. We can only conclude that either:

A: Men aren’t actually being oppressed, as a class
B: Men, as a class, in general (not every single individual man) are, if not colluding, at least complicit through inaction to their oppression.

I, personally, would say C: Some men just got the shaft from the inevitable march of technology and the social changes which came in its wake. It may suck, but the average herd-following woman isn’t “to blame” for it any more than the average busy trucker is. She may benefit, and by all means, as unger says, blame her for abusing her power, but you can’t blame her for feminism itself any more than you can blame me for the Civil Rights Movement. I just sit around benefiting from it, I didn’t actually have anything to do with it.

“yes, I believe there’s definitely life on this planet right here! and maybe we’ll find evidence of it.”

Well, you’d still be irrational. A scientist would say, “That’s cute, but it’s irrational. There’s no point in believing something if “maybe” we’ll find evidence for it, you only start to believe in it *after* you find evidence for it.”

Is it rational to believe in the unproven as long as you’re trying to prove it?

Yes. If you want to prove something, you need to have *some* evidence that it’s true beyond “subjective feelings.” Louis Pasteur may not have had enough evidence to prove his theories 100% when he first started out, but he had enough solid evidence to make an attempt to prove his theories rational. You have no such evidence.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with being *admittedly* irrational. Admitting you’re such would be a step in the right direction. When you staunchly defend it is where the problems start.

On to AR:

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to effect changes, but let’s understand that the civil rights movement of the 1950′s and 1960′s took some years to build and organize up,

I understand and agree with this. Hell, “some years,” the civil rights movement arguably took *centuries* to build up. There wouldn’t have been an MLK without the efforts of Frederick Douglass and Martin R. Delany back in the nineteenth century, and Douglass was part of a tradition that included (at least) Olaudah Equiano in the eighteenth century, and so on, and so forth. If you want to say it’ll be a long time before men get the same momentum, sure, that’s one thing, though it’s a separate argument. But…

Men don’t even agree that their situation is all that bad

This is arguably evidence that the situation really isn’t that bad. You ask a black fella anytime before the Civil Rights Movement and you’d be hard pressed to find one in a thousand who wouldn’t say that things are bad for African-Americans. This is because “things are bad for African Americans” was, well, true. It’s not as common to see much debate over things which aren’t certainly true, though. In the…if not manosphere, at least the manosphere orbiters, you can find people who make similar arguments as GKchesterton.Go to matingmarket dot wordpress dot com to see Thumpy’s defenses of feminism from a male perspective. PUAs like Neil Strauss (certainly not a socon) say feminism was good for them. The inimitable Simon Grey posted an entry a couple of days ago which sounded almost exactly like the one I made before. It ain’t just “socon white knights” who are skeptical that Things Are Very Bad and/or that men are ‘victims.’ The fact that there’s even a debate is not in and of itself evidence that one side of the debate is right.

Wealthy individuals with an agenda can clearly be found in the history. Ideologues with an agenda likewise.

Sure, but ideologies, promulgated by the ‘elites’ or not, can’t take root and gain mass traction without the right social environment, and that social environment is determined largely though not entirely by technological and demographic changes. “Elites” aren’t omnipotent–ironically, this is the argument many in the MRM make against conspiracy theories. I’m sure you’ve already heard some MRAs claim that pinning feminism on “the elites” takes blame away from women and whatnot. Oddly enough, your fellow MRAs might argue against you even more strenuously than I.

Now, what *I* argue? I’m not trying to say that technology is 100% of it, or that ideologies and the efforts of motivated “elites” played no role in the changes we’ve seen since the nineteenth century. But technological change not only made such ideologies appealing to wide segments of the population, I would argue it made the spread of “marxist” ideology inevitable. I may quibble with your emphasis on Marxism, especially since some of what we consider to be “feminism” emerged before Marx was even born, but again, that’s a tale for another time. I am saying, though, that technological change not only creates “fertile ground” for certain ideologies (which you call Marxist), but such technological changes create conditions making the rise of such ideologies…not inevitable, but much more likely.

It is no crime to be ignorant of ecclesiastical history, which is, after all, a specialized and somewhat boring field, but in light of the soteriological consequences involved, it is grievously irresponsible to express opinions about such history while remaining in that state of ignorance.

“such technological changes create conditions making the rise of such ideologies…well, okay, I’ll concede that “inevitable” would be an overstatement. They did, however, make such ideological changes *much* more likely–at the very least.”

“Interesting points. First, I choose to believe that God exists, rather than that He doesn’t, because I “feel” it.”

I see. That position is known as fiedism and it isn’t really a good position to take. It is clearly irrational to do so.

“Since there’s no proof either way, neither choice is irrational.”

This is also not true, there is plenty of evidence, and a position choosen on no evidence, especially one that you merely “feel” is right, is by definition irrational. You seem to have drunk extremely deeply from the well of postmodernism.

“If I didn’t believe in God’s divinity, I’d be an atheist”

God’s divinity? I’m not sure what on earth you could possibly mean. To be divine means to be God. I note you mentioned in a previous reply that you would be a “Rational Atheist”, but at least where “atheism” is a synonym for “naturalist”, it isn’t possible to be a rational one.

“Your assumption that I share that belief is the only flaw in you logic”

No it was clear you didn’t. The logic you used for the claim was defective though which was why I called you on it. And it wouldn’t change that you share the same hermenutical approach as Westboro Baptist.

“That and my chosen belief in his divinity, are why I “follow” Him.”

You can’t actually chose to believe something. Belief formation doens’t work like that.

“Speaking of faith, Right before I hit “publish,” I just learned that my 51 year old brother-in-law has been diagnosed with a large brain tumor. Prayers would be welcome. I may not be hangin’ out here in cyberspace for a while.”

Actually that isn’t correct. Faith is not blind but a rational commitment based on the balance of evidence. If you don’t think there is any may I humbly suggest you actually look before deciding that.

You can base a belief on a subjective feeling but it isn’t rational to do so and the Bible explictly tells you _not_ to do this in many places (Mark 12:30, an explict command from Jesus and Paul in 1 Thess 5:21 for two examples).

Thanks for the perspectives on faith an rationality.
Hurp: “Well, you’d still be irrational.”
–You’re the first intelligent person I’ve encountered who has said that. I used to believe it, and I wasn’t ashamed to be “irrational” in that way. There’s nothing wrong with not being “rational” about something for which there is evidence but no definitive proof. [What makes divinity different from other areas is, if it’s real (and not just another sort of “physical” dimension] there can be no definitive proof of it.) However, many bright, rational people disagree with you. Perhaps it’s in the finer points of the definition of “rational.” If my faith is irrational, I still don’t mind.

Jason Rennie: “Faith is not blind but a rational commitment based on the balance of evidence.” —-Yes, you’right. I misspoke about “feelings.” Normally when I discuss this, I acknowledge that in the absence of definitive proof, emotions about evidence influence the decision to commit to a belief. If I didn’t have strong feelings about the existence of divinity, I’d be one of those rare people who manage to not believe one way or another. The closest I can come to that is, “I believe but I understand I might be wrong.” Maybe it is irrational. BTW, I like your wording – “rational commitment based on the balance of evidence.”

“God’s divinity? I’m not sure what on earth you could possibly mean. To be divine means to be God.”
–Yep, ‘God’s divinity’ is redundant, but I’m fond of the phrase: Most Christians I speak with think “God” means “The God of the Bible,” and they presume I agree. I don’t agree because I think the Bible diminishes God. Therefore, I like the juxtaposition. Every human characteristic that we attribute to God, diminishes His divinity – if we can understand it to the point that we can convey it in words, it’s not divine; divinity is beyond our intellect.

“And it wouldn’t change that you share the same hermenutical approach as Westboro Baptist.”
–I see a difference, but but I could be splitting hairs. Phelps sees parts of the Bible as definitive proof that his beliefs are absolutely true, because he agrees with those parts. I see parts of the Bible as part of the evidence that my beliefs may be true, because I agree with those parts, but I don’t believe the Bible is irrefutable proof. I think the Bible supports my beliefs, but it doesn’t prove them.

Unger: “Suz: It may surprise you to learn that ..”
–Yes, it does surprise me. I thought it was common knowledge, long before Dan Brown. Might this be yet another thing Christian Culture implies while not outright lying. I know a few people who are well educated in religious history, and not one of them has contradicted the assumption. Thank you for speaking up. Ironically, that false but common assumption is one of the many “beliefs” that didn’t mislead Christ’s early followers.

Incidentally one of the first bits of “evidence” that led me back to Christianity was this: Christ’s teachings were amazingly radical, for any era. They were the antithesis of religious tradition. Most known religions have boiled down to “earning your way into God’s good graces” – condemnation for bad behavior vs. salvation for good behavior. Judaism certainly did. How mind-blowingly radical was it to contradict the church by saying, “The very worst of us can be forgiven and we don’t even have to earn it. Just admit your sins, repent, and ask.” Christ took all of the human power out of religion. He gave the power back to God. (Of course the church has snatched it right back.)

Come now, the challenge was for you to actually write something about Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler. Can you do it? I do not think so.

No deary. The challenge was a red herring that had nothing to do with anything. But here, let me remove the stumbling block:
They are evil people.

I’m far from believing women can’t commit evil. I never said otherwise. You, however, are projecting like mad.

As to the rest of your argument I think Hurp demolished it easily. Comparing the women’s movement to the civil rights movement is actually a very, very, very old feminist mind trick that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony (where she effectively buried the early black movement and betrayed what were up till then her allies).

You’re sort of right and sort of wrong in my view, GK. You’re right in saying that in many cases, the women’s rights folks came into conflict with racial egalitarians. The aforementioned Frederick Douglass was undoubtedly a feminist (for his day, at least–his second wife was a feminist, and they did remain happily married until his death, though his children by his first marriage never really approved), and he would be constantly vexed by the racism of many in the women’s movement. He never really forgot how, for instance, Stanton opposed the 15th Amendment, for instance.

However, I would argue that abolitionism and the subsequent civil rights movement made feminism…again, not necessarily “inevitable,” but much more likely. This is one area where I do have to concede my previous comments were a bit “mechanistic,” ideologies can feed other ideologies in much the same way as technological change. Abolitionism is an example of this. The primary argument that Douglass and others like him made is that people’s rights cannot be curtailed solely on the basis of immutable biological characteristics. You cannot deny a black man the right to vote or own property on the basis that his skin is black. It is not a very far jump from that to say you cannot deny a woman the right to vote and own property on the basis of what she has between her legs. You could argue with this (the aforementioned WNs and alt-righters completely reject the ‘liberal’ premises of racial egalitarianism as well as gender egalitarianism–heck, some of them defend slavery), as I’m not sure where exactly you’re coming from (are you a ‘traditional conservative’ or a member of the ‘secular right’ or someone from the more nihilistic end of the spectrum, like Ferdinand Bardamu?), but I’m just sayin’ that the historical circumstances of the black movement at the very least paved the way for feminism.

I asked:Come now, the challenge was for you to actually write something about Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler. Can you do it? I do not think so.

No deary. The challenge was a red herring that had nothing to do with anything.

On the contrary, they are a useful litmus test, as I stated last night. Your ongoing dancing around them demonstrates this.

But here, let me remove the stumbling block:
They are evil people.

And?

I’m far from believing women can’t commit evil. I never said otherwise.

Nah, you just refused to even discuss the idea at all, and pretty much pulled your dress over your head for a while rather than deal with a tiny piece of reality. It’s been like pulling teeth to get you to even admit of the possibility, and I’m frankly skeptical that you can actually apply the lesson to anything.

As to the rest of your argument I think Hurp demolished it easily.

Er, no. He and I actually are more in agreement than in disagreement. You, on the other hand, still can’t explain how it is that all men are somehow to blame for feminism. However, given that you don’t seem to actually read replies to you the first time, or second time, or third time, perhaps it’s just an issue of repetition. That is, if the same question is put to you enough times, you’ll eventually kinda sorta note it and offer an emotional, logic-free reply. Or maybe you’ll just stamp your feet, exclaim “You…you..you…MAN! You know what you did!”, burst into tears and rush out of the room – virtually, of course. That wouldn’t be new, either, by the way.

Comparing the women’s movement to the civil rights movement is actually a very, very, very old feminist mind trick that goes all the way back to Susan B. Anthony (where she effectively buried the early black movement and betrayed what were up till then her allies).

While ‘egalitarian feminism’ was rooted in Marxist type thought, the ‘complementarian feminism’ that took off in the US was rooted in Calvinist thought and catalyzed by democracy. The movement to give women the right to vote was failing miserably until the appeal became to help make government more enlightened and charitable. Then, men were disarmed and capitulated because, really, who wouldn’t want a government that helps everyone more and has the direct input of the gentler sex? State after state gave women the vote then when that persuasive angle was used. The problem, of course, lie in the ideology of the rightness of democracy and not enough people saw the logical conclusion of extending the franchise as we see it today. And as should have been expected, the egalitarians continued to use any inroad gained by other means to further their own agenda.

I was once a believer in democracy, now I find myself more inclined to think like one Mr. J.R.R. Tolkien: “My political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy … Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.”

So saying women can be evil, which I had stated before, is not enough? Oh well. Your a mad dog that should be left to his ravings. My conversation with you is done.

@Gurp

Christian social conservative of a very anti-feminist leaning. As I said before, removing the female right to vote is not a bad thing at all. Like K_C I am a monarchist, though I do like constitutional monarchies. As Chesterton wrote monarchies are actually very democratic as its all luck of the (biological) draw.

I’d never thought about your argument on segregation. Is there someone who has formed a good argument that would _not_ lead to feminism? You are right that certain men compromised based on wanting to be nice guys. This is one of the ways that men in general can be complicit. Its sometimes hard to be nice in the right way and very easy to be nice in the wrong way.

Also, how do we preserve female dignity without feminism? I don’t think its impossible as we’ve done it before, but I’m not sure how to articulate it post-feminism and make sure that we don’t play so nice that we don’t lose a sense of female culpability in moral decision making. One of the main beefs that Duffy is alluding to in her post is that there seems to be directionless anger in the manosphere not so much in the articles per se but in the comments like last threads “rape” meme. Anger is ok (and even beneficial in this case as Darlock has pointed out in his last post), random seething is not and frankly strikes me as effeminate.

Hurp, I have an explanation for the wide range of opinions among men regarding feminism and it’s based on a couple of things you said. Basically, some men profit from feminism, while other men are injured by it.

Analogy: About 100 years ago, some black people in the South began to acquire enough money to be able to live a middle class life. They could ride in he 1st class compartment on railroad trains, for example. This development was horrifying to many Southerners, and the separate-but-equal Jim Crow system came into being. Suppose, though, that instead of a color line, there had been a money line instead? Suppose that prices (of train tickets, of theater tickets, of houses) had been artificially increased so that only the top 5% of whites could afford the first class style, and that grudging acceptance of those few black professionals who could pay was part of the deal?

Segregation would not have been so obviously a black and white issue. Elite whites could have pointed to a handful of blacks as evidence that there wasn’t a problem – a black professor and his family in an upscale neighborhood, a black doctor and his wife in the 1st class compartment on a train, a black attorney and his fiance in a box seat at the theater, and so forth. It is quite possible that much of the anger would have been muted, if the elite members of black society had been accepted, however grudgingly, as part of the larger elite group. All of this is speculation and analogy, I admit.

But that’s what has happened with feminism. Upper middle class and upper class people benefit from it. When Doctor Smith the surgeon marries Doctor Jones the pediatrician, the household income gets that much bigger. And when Doctor Smith the wife gives birth, she puts her practice on hold for a while until the nanny can take over, then she goes back to work – if it means her gross income drops down to only $100K for a tax year, Dr. Smith the surgeon can make up for it. They can live in a nice, small McMansion (only 4,000 sq. ft., really just a cottage) in an elite, even gated, community with other people just like themselves. And since both doctors are likely to realize that divorce would have serious financial implications, even if they grow apart, they are not likely to ever be exposed to the divorce industry. So there’s nothing wrong with feminism, why, it’s enabled Dr. Smith to help many, many children.

And if they don’t have children, if they remain Dual Income No Kids (DINKs) then feminism is pure gravy. It greased the skids of Ms. Jones career, from high school through college and into medical school. No way that Drs. Smith will see anything wrong with feminism. Even if there is a divorce, it will be a clean one with minimal conflict because, as studies show and Dalrock has cited, the power struggles come with “who gets custody of the children”. If there aren’t any, a big part of the power of the divorce industry is never brought into play.

The effects of feminism are not uniform across all income classes. The impact of feminism is very much not uniform across income classes. So take a nice professional family, where the husband is an attorney at law, and therefore can afford easily to have a stay at home wife who raises the children. Because he’s in the top 5% of earners, he’s likely to always be alpha enough to avoid the fate that awaits betaizing. Because his loving wife stays home with their 2, 3, 4 or more children, she’s less likely to be in the social circles where divorce can propagate (as Dalrock showed last year or so). Sure, she may “marry” the children, but again her husband is alpha enough to probably control for that. In any event, all the people they know in their UMC cocoon / bubble are doing all right, and divorces are rare.

The children of the upper middle class won’t be in public schools. Their sons are much less likely to be punished for acting like boys, or forced to take drugs such as Ritalin. And since they do want their children to succeed, and success is partly measured by college, they are not going to object to all the extra benefits young women are given merely for having two X chromosomes.

To attorneys, to the professoriate, to doctors, etc. feminism is either all good, or mostly good, because the bad effects simply are not visible to the Upper Middle Class. So take some UMC twit living in a bubble, and expose him or her to the modern SMP and MMP. What will they take note of? Why, the dangers to young women, of course. The possibility that Susie Cupcake will spend too much time in the bars of her college town, and get pumped & dumped by some dreadful cad. Thus to the isolated, insular, bubble-boy UMC twit the most pressing issue of the modern SMP / MMP is not divorce theft, not false rape accusations, not the frustration and social isolation of ordinary young men, no, no, no. It is the dreaded “players”, the evil PUA’s.

As exhibit A of my hypothesis, I point to any of several posters in the last year, most prominently among them being Escoffier.

Since UMC bubble-boys don’t know anyone who has been through the divorce industry, they discount divorce theft. Since they don’t know anyone who has been backstabbed at work with a false sexual harassment charge, they discount that as well. And so forth, and so on, down the list.

To the UMC bubble world, all this talk of divorce theft, of false rape, of blatant misandry may very well seem like the ravings of lunatics – after all, none of the people at the Country Club have ever experienced such things, nobody in the faculty lounge talks that way, none of the other probate attorneys worry about such things, etc. Therefore, all those men must be bad men, who want to do bad things to women (and probably have small penes to boot).

GKChestertonSo saying women can be evil, which I had stated before, is not enough?

Well, a thoughtful person would find that there are some conclusions that flow from that statement; legal, social, and moral, and someone who is attempting to discuss in good faith a major social problem would therefore go on to explicate on those topics. A thoughtful person who had realized that his own prejudices made him rather difficult to trust would perhaps be interested in explaining himself.

Oh well. Your a mad dog that should be left to his ravings.

I’m sure that is much easier for you. You’re obviously having difficulty keeping up your side of the discussion.

My conversation with you is done.

In order to have a conversation, one must pay attention to what the other person says or writes. Hurp and I have a conversation going.

Your monologue has not been all that interesting. Must be a lot of fun at Country Club cocktail parties to be around you…

Very interesting response, good Anonymous Reader. If I ever get myself a real blog someday, I may devote a larger entry to the comment you just left, as I do think it’s a very cogent assessment. However, for the purposes of a single comment on Dalrock’s blog,I would like to address this:

Suppose, though, that instead of a color line, there had been a money line instead?…So there’s my hypothesis of the day. Follow the money…

The problem is, though, a lot of the men supporting feminism aren’t “elite” in any sense, monetarily or otherwise. Hugo Schyzer isn’t (well, wasn’t) a professor at Yale or Harvard he was a…lecturer at a *community college.* Many gamers (Roissy comes to mind) who support feminism, or at least acknowledge it’s been good for them, are lowly bureaucrats, musicians (not famous musicians, but guys in local bands), and so on–the sort of people who take pride in being able to rein in pussy *despite* having net worths close to nothing.

I’ll admit I haven’t seen that many machinists or truckers expressing much support for feminism (though I’d be surprised if none existed), but I’ve seen too many “nobodies”–i.e too many ‘regular folks,’ the sorts of people who don’t have much money or fame–benefit from or support feminism to easily believe a monied/social elite are the only ones “responsible” for it. This isn’t to say they had nothing to do with feminism, or even that feminism would have been able to take off without them–*any* social change almost necessarily needs the support of “elites,” again to take the civil rights example, this is exactly why W.E.B DuBois stressed the importance of the “Talented Tenth” in his writings. But just as it would be wrong to attribute the successes of the Civil Rights movement solely or even primarily to either a black elite or exclusively to the support of rich whites, Jews, or whoever, as far as I can tell, it’s not really correct to attribute feminism’s March Through the Institutions solely or even primarily to the monied upper classes. They may have played an important part, but not the only part, and arguably not the most important part.

HurpThe problem is, though, a lot of the men supporting feminism aren’t “elite” in any sense, monetarily or otherwise.

For what definition of “supporting feminism”? I wager that you can not find a single tenured professor in the Ivy League who doesn’t support feminism, to some degree. The same is true across the Upper Class and the UMC, seems to me. They may call it something else, but as Twain remarked, calling a tail a leg doesn’t change the facts.

There’s more to benefiting from feminism than Hugo style easy sex. The UMC, as I pointed out, benefits financially from feminism pretty clearly.

I’ll admit I haven’t seen that many machinists or truckers expressing much support for feminism (though I’d be surprised if none existed), but I’ve seen too many “nobodies”–i.e too many ‘regular folks,’ the sorts of people who don’t have much money or fame–benefit from or support feminism to easily believe a monied/social elite are the only ones “responsible” for it.

Sorry, I changed the subject. This latest posting is more about why there’s no unity among men about feminism – because upper class and upper middle class families receive more of the benefits, and pay fewer of the costs than middle class families, while working class families pay heavy costs for few, or no, benefits. That’s why I wrote about doctors, and DINKS.

This isn’t to say they had nothing to do with feminism, or even that feminism would have been able to take off without them–*any* social change almost necessarily needs the support of “elites,” again to take the civil rights example, this is exactly why W.E.B DuBois stressed the importance of the “Talented Tenth” in his writings. But just as it would be wrong to attribute the successes of the Civil Rights movement solely or even primarily to either a black elite or exclusively to the support of rich whites, Jews, or whoever, as far as I can tell, it’s not really correct to attribute feminism’s March Through the Institutions solely or even primarily to the monied upper classes. They may have played an important part, but not the only part, and arguably not the most important part.

That would be a whole long posting in itself, really. No time right now.

You are right there has been large groups of complicit men. I _have_ talked to blue color types that have happily mouthed feminist platitudes. We men like protecting our own. Telling us we are being mean to our women (rightly) upsets us. This allows for otherwise good men to follow blindly along.

I’ve noticed going back and forth in the comments attempts to blame one group or another complicity in going along with feminism.

May I suggest that Feminism is a deeply evil movement, dare I say spawned from the deepest depths of the pits of hell, and like all evil, it has power precisely because it corrupts and co-opts something good.

After all, equality and opportunity are actually good things in and of themselves, but feminists have sought to pervert this in their lust for power. Likewise the desire for men to protect women is a natural and good inclination that feminists have likewise sought to exploit.

Like all movements for evil in history, to get good people to go along with it, it has had to pervert and corrupt good things and twist them to its own ends.

So are men partially to blame? Sure, many should have and should be more discerning than they are when it comes to dealing with such things. Certainly in hindsight the evil inherent in it is obvious. But at the same time the desire to care for our women folk is a natural and good impulse, so it is at least understandable why so many were suckered in.

I agree totally Jason. Evil as such doesn’t exist. Evil can’t create it can only corrupt. If you think about it “Team Woman” is a corruption of Woman’s natural role as social fabric maker as much as gossip is.

The Gilligans seem not to realize that it is feminism that is destroying society. Outrage about real evils is just “whining” to them – they don’t want to hear it because they don’t have the moral courage to face the truth: that they’re the enablers of this destruction. It’s much easier to try to please the women and the crowd than to say things that can have personal consequences.

This is irrelevant to the commission of immoral acts by women. I often hear this about abortion, and the implication (as far as the hamster wheel goes) is that it’s really MEN who are to blame for women having abortions more often than not. Blaming men for feminism is 100% a refusal of moral responsibility, which is of course the essence of feminism. Anything bad in feminism is to be blamed on men, anything “good” in feminism (and yes, these women definitely see good, you can be sure of that) is something the women accomplished on their own.

“** The manosphere can be a scary place for women as evidenced by the posts _here of all places_”

I hope you’re right, I really hope there are some women who might actually be afraid of some collective retribution for the harm their immoral embrace of feminism is causing. The one thing to understand about dealing with feminism, is that being a “gentleman” doesn’t work. When you deal with witches, you fight with fire.

TFH – ”Ever since the start of 2010, I have been saying that manginas would double down on their pedestalization/misandry, and they have.”

And how prophetic it seems you’ve been.

But, let’s not forget the privileged women of Christendom who are getting in of the act.

Seems like the tact being taken up by Elizabeth Duffy is making it’s way around the “Chrito-Feminosphere”. I wonder how many hit-n-run trolls like that vapid arid238 we can expect to see dropping by to deliver their meme of “men are responsible for creating feminism, so men should not be angry about it, and should just shut up and learn to get with the program”.

That would suit the Christo-Feminist just fine if we were to just shut up and learn to appreciate whatever scraps they might wish to throw us.

It used to be that woman used to use whiny slogans to complain about the way they suggested men wished to disenfranchise, oppress and control them. How often have we heard that men just wanted women “barefoot and pregnant”? Personally, I never knew of any men who wished to for their wives, nor any other women. But, the complaint was raised ad nauseam despite it’s virtually complete lack of true applicability.

What would actually be more accurate and honest would be to point out that women today, both leftist feminists and Christo-Feminists, want to keep their men “silent and serving”. <arid238 claimed she believed men were leaders. I had hoped Deti would have applied his translator to her posts, but what I believe she meant was that she believed some (alpha/apex) men were leaders, and the rest of the men are meant to be (silent) servants to women and those alpha males.

The (supposedly) angry and bitter “Manosphere” is proving to be a real nuisance to their idea of the “greater good” of men keeping their damned mouths shut, accepting that they are the primary reason for feminism, and getting back to the work of providing protecting and dying for Gods chosen gender.